Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Warrant Officers (Rum Ration)

Captain Marsden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, with the absorption of warrant officers' messes into wardroom messes, it is the intention of the Admiralty to continue the rum issue to warrant officers.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): Warrant officers have not been entitled to a rum ration since 1918.

Captain Marsden: So many of my naval friends have told me that, since I put the Question down, that I realise I am not so up to date as I would like to be. They also ask this question: What wine bill will warrant officers be allowed when they join the wardroom mess, and will they be required to pay the communal expenses which are customary in the maintenance of a wardroom mess?

Mr. Dugdale: That is entirely another question. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will put it down.

Ships (Laundry Equipment)

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can give an assurance that all ships of the Royal Navy are provided with equipment and accommodation for washing the clothes of the crew; what arrangements are made for the additional amount of washing needed in ships stationed in hot climates; and what special

arrangements are made to assist the washing for small ships where the installation of special equipment is difficult or impracticable.

Mr. Dugdale: It has for some time been the practice to fit power laundries in cruisers and larger ships. This is being done as ships come in for refit. It was decided last year to extend this policy to cover smaller ships, and these are being fitted with domestic washing machines and drying cabinets where space, weight and other considerations permit. Parent and depot ships are fitted with laundries capable of providing a limited service for the small ships attached to them. In the present manpower situation it is not always possible for these to be fully manned, but some ships on foreign stations employ native labour to ease this problem. Otherwise, no special arrangements are made in ships in tropical climates, the limiting factor already being space and weight.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: What happens in the case of a small ship in a tropical climate when there are no facilities on board?

Mr. Dugdale: Obviously, the clothes have to be washed as best they can.

Sir Ronald Ross: Can officers have their clothes washed, as well as ratings, or is it confined to ratings?

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly, officers' clothes are washed as well as those of ratings.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: Will the Parliamentary Secretary take care that the expensive laundry equipment fitted to some of the big ships in America—I am thinking of ships like the "Nelson"—is taken out and preserved when they are scrapped?

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly. We will see that everything possible is used.

Overseas Depots

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what recent action has been taken, and with what results, to review the establishments and organisation and methods of overseas depots, with a view to ensuring that these are conducted efficiently with the minimum use of manpower; and whether instructions have been issued that


junior staff should be encouraged to make constructive suggestions for the better running of the depots in which they serve.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): As regards the first part of the Question, the numbers of industrial employees overseas are controlled by strict reference to the financial provision in the Estimates and the non-industrials by ordinary complementing methods. In addition, senior officers of Admiralty departments with large interests overseas from time to time carry out inspections at particular establishments as the desirability becomes apparent. Admiralty departments are alive to the importance of improving organisation and methods to the utmost practicable extent. As regards the second part of the Question, instructions have long been in existence stating that suggestions from the staff are always welcome and the Admiralty's Whitley Council structure includes arrangements to this end.

Mr. Sharp: While recognising that inspection may be carried out from time to time, can my hon. Friend say whether any recent inspections have been made, and were the Estimates based on figures provided by the officers commanding these overseas depots, or was any independent investigation made?

Mr. Edwards: Investigations are continually taking place, and the Estimates are framed in accordance with the requirements of the various overseas stations.

Press Article (Publication)

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on what grounds a naval officer of the Executive Branch was recently refused permission to publish an article in the Press dealing with attendance at religious worship in the Royal Navy.

Mr. Dugdale: Permission to publish this article was sought under K.R. and A.I. Article 17 (2), but was refused in accordance with the Admiralty's practice of forbidding the publication by serving officers or men of any matter of a controversial nature relating to Admiralty policy.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my hon. Friend aware that this particular article was entirely objective in its nature, and did not venture on a criticism of any Admiralty policy? Is he further aware of the fact that senior naval officers have, since this Order was introduced about compulsory church attendance, criticised it adversely, and got away with it, and does it not seem inconsistent that that should have happened when this junior officer is penalised in this way?

Mr. Dugdale: It is not my view that this article is non-controversial. I have read it carefully, and I think it is controversial, and takes exception to Admiralty policy. With regard to the other part of the question, if my hon. Friend will give me examples of such statements I will, naturally, take them up.

Mr. Driberg: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that this decision does not in any way further limit the rights of serving officers and men, as they were defined in the last Parliament by the, right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill)?

Mr. Dugdale: I think the right hon. Member for Woodford defined them in a speech about 1942, in very general terms. The best definition, however, is in the Admiralty instructions, which I have mentioned. They remain precisely the same and are not altered in any way by this particular incident.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Opened Letter (Inquiry)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Postmaster-General for what purpose and by what authority officers of his Department opened a letter sent by Miss R. Browne-Clark, 54, Ancaster Crescent, New Malden, on 20th February, to the Hotel National, Grindelwald.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): In the absence of further details, I am not in a position to say in what circumstances the letter was opened, but if the hon. Member will kindly furnish me with such particulars, including if possible the envelope of the letter itself, I shall be glad to have inquiry made.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the Postmaster-General mean by that answer that


this tampering with the mails of private persons is on so large a scale nowadays that his Department do not even keep a record of when they do it?

Mr. Paling: It is not on a large scale at all. The answer merely means that if the hon. Member wants to know about it and will let me have the evidence, I will tell him.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Just the usual Gestapo.

Post Office, Mundford

Mr. Dye: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied with the size of the accommodation at the Post Office in the village of Mundford, Norfolk; if he is aware that in recent months a queue of customers have stretched down the village street; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I am satisfied that this Post Office is large enough for normal requirements. There was some congestion a little time ago, but it has now ceased.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: In order that the House should be fully informed about this important question, could the right hon. Gentleman say what is the length of the village street and, therefore, the length of the queue?

Sub-Postmasters (Pay Increases)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Postmaster-General if he has now considered the inadequate remuneration at present paid to sub-postmasters and postmistresses; and what increase he proposes to make.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: An agreement was reached on the 3rd February, 1948, with the National Federation of Sub-postmasters which I hope will prove satisfactory, but the increases given are too various to be stated within the limits of a Parliamentary answer and I am writing to the hon. Member.

Mr. Lipson: Have the sub-postmasters and postmistresses been informed of this increase?

Mr. Paling: I am not sure of that, but I think that they know about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — B.B.C. EUROPEAN SERVICE (DR. EUGENE STEINER)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Postmaster-General in what capacity Dr. Eugene Steiner a foreign subject was employed on the staff of the European Service of the B.B.C.; and whether he has now left the employment of the Corporation.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: I am informed by the B.B.C. that Dr. Eugene Steiner was employed as an assistant in the preparation of programmes in the Czech Section of the B.B.C.'s European Service, and that he resigned recently from the service of the Corporation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Auxiliary Squadrons (Headquarters)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many town headquarters and drill halls, belonging to Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons, have been returned to the units; how many are still being used for other purposes; and how many squadrons are without town headquarters.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Nine out of 20 Royal Auxiliary Air Force flying squadrons had town headquarters before the war; eight of these have been returned to the units and one was destroyed by enemy action. Alternative accommodation is now occupied by this squadron. Of the remaining II, nine are suitably provided with accommodation either on the airfield or in a town headquarters, and permanent town headquarters are being provided for the other two.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that accommodation on the airfield is not really good enough? If he is to get the recruits he must provide headquarters in the nearest town in which the men can train; and would he review the matter?

Mr. Henderson: This question is settled in consultation with the local Territorial and auxiliary forces, associations. Any representations to that end which may be made by a particular association would certainly be considered sympathetically.

Airfield, Holme (Land Cultivation)

Mr. Odey: asked the Secretary of State for Air why, when it was decided to restore Holme Moor R.A.F. Station to agricultural purposes, cultivation of this land has been undertaken by the War Agricultural Committee without any opportunity being given to Mr. Loftus, the existing tenant of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who farmed this land before it was requisitioned, to resume cultivation.

Mr. A. Henderson: The airfield at Holme is being kept for flying by the R.A.F. Flying will not, however, begin for some time and meanwhile, as is the usual practice, all the land which can be used for farming has been made available to the Ministry of Agriculture. The responsibility for seeing that the best arrangements are made for its use rests, under that Department, with the County Agricultural Executive Committee.

Mr. Odey: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel that it is very shabby treatment of a competent farmer to requisition his land for war purposes and not to return that land to him when it is restored for agricultural purposes?

Mr. Henderson: The practice which has been followed by all Service Departments has been that when the land is not immediately required for Service purposes it is handed over to the Ministry of Agriculture, who are thought to be the best judges of who should be used to farm the land.

Mr. Odey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that it is time that that policy was revised?

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is the Ministry of Agriculture given full particulars of the circumstances of the original requisition by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir.

Extended Service (Gratuities)

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will now grant the full gratuities for three years' service to that group of airmen who elected to serve under the extended service engagement in accordance with A.M.O. A. 963/46, but who were discharged before

the termination of the above service in accordance with Air Ministry letter A 19119 of December, 1947.

Mr. A. Henderson: While I greatly regret that circumstances made it impossible to complete the aircrew training of these men, I would point out that they were offered the alternative of completing their engagement on ground duties, but with the privileges and pay of aircrew, and thus of earning full gratuity. Proportionate gratuity is paid to those who opt for discharge in accordance with the terms of their contract. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Donner: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Air Ministry letter of apology to these men was such as to admit quite clearly the Department's moral obligation to them, and does he now repudiate that moral obligation?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. It is only fair to say that my Department has sought to meet that moral obligation by offering to these men the same terms of service as were offered when they were taken on as aircrew, and has asked them to opt either to leave or to take other duties.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Does that mean that these men who opted to do ground duties also retain their rank in addition to retaining their pay as aircrew?

Mr. Henderson: Yes, Sir. They have exactly the same conditions of service.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Do they retain their rank?

Mr. Henderson: I would not like to commit myself to that. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that Question down. I can say that they have the same conditions of service.

Helicopters

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many helicopters have been ordered by his Department; and when it is anticipated they will be ready for use.

Mr. A. Henderson: Various promising experiments with helicopters are being conducted for the Ministry of Supply. Development has not yet, however,


reached a stage when service orders for these aircraft can be placed by my Department.

Mr. Freeman: Can the Minister say when he will be in a position to order any, or to take any steps in that direction?

Mr. Henderson: No, Sir. That depends on the progress of this development work.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the Minister realise that the makers of the helicopters are offering them to civil aviation, and if they are doing that, why cannot he take advantage of it?

Mr. Henderson: I was not aware that that was the position.

Stations, Japan

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Air what is the present position with regard to the stations at Miho and Iwakuni; how far have they been handed over to Civil Aviation or to Commonwealth or Foreign Powers; what has been the financial arrangement as regards buildings, etc.; and when the R.A.F. are likely to leave these stations.

Mr. A. Henderson: The stations at Miho and Iwakuni are part of the British Commonwealth Forces organisation in Japan, under the control of the Supreme Commander. They will remain under the Supreme Commander when R.A.F. units have been withdrawn. All buildings for the occupying forces are provided, without payment, by the Japanese authorities. Except for a small detachment for maintaining certain essential communications, all R.A.F. units will have left these stations by 31st March.

Mr. Teeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise how much many of us regret this departure, especially of the fighter squadrons who were able to show both the Japanese and the Americans what very good weapons the Air Force could produce; further, would he answer the other part of the Question and say what is to happen with regard to civil aviation in view of the fact that civil aviation planes are to land at Iwakuni? Are the R.A.F. or the American Forces going to look after them?

Mr. Henderson: As far as the civil aviation side of the matter is concerned, that would be the responsibility of the Minister of Civil Aviation.

Mr. Teeling: Has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman worked that out already? Has it not been decided?

Mr. Henderson: I have no responsibility at all for civil aviation.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

B.O.A.C. (Advertising Agents)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether with a view to saving dollars he will direct B.O.A.C. only to employ British advertising agents.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): No, Sir. I understand that wherever possible, British advertising agents are used by the British Overseas Airways Corporation, but advertising in the United States and Canada necessarily involves dollar expenditure.

Boeing Stratocruisers

Mr. Beswick: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how many Boeing Stratocruisers have B.O.A.C. now on order; what is the cost per aircraft; and what was the cost for each Constellation.

Mr. Lindgren: Six, Sir. It is anticipated that the total cost will be within 12 million dollars. The cost of five Constellations, excluding the cost on initial modifications and spares, was 3,750,000 dollars.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

British Newspapers

Mr. Asterley Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will arrange that copies of the leading British daily and weekly papers, particularly "The Times," are available regularly to officers of the Control Commission, Germany.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Over 1,000 daily newspapers and some weekly papers are supplied officially to the Control Commission including 335 copies of "The Times" newspaper. In addition, private arrangements with newsagents in this country are made from Germany on behalf of individual officers of the Commission.


New arrangements were instituted last month which it is hoped will be more satisfactory than in the past.

Convicted British Civilians (Appeals)

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that British civilians convicted by Control Commission courts in Germany have no right of appeal to any court in Great Britain; and whether he will introduce legislation to remedy this situation.

Mr. Bevin: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." It is not proposed to introduce legislation as it is considered that the Control Commission Court of Appeal gives an adequate safeguard to any British civilian sentenced in a lower court. There is a further appeal by way of clemency to the Commander-in-Chief.

Mr. Marlowe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British subjects dealt with by courts in any other parts of the world, including the Dominions and Colonies, have a right of appeal to the Privy Council in this country, and does he not think that some similar machinery should be set up in regard to courts in Germany?

Mr. Bevin: Germany is not a Dominion or a Colony, and I cannot introduce that principle as a result of occupation of another country. When the unconditional surrender terms were introduced, we undertook to introduce what was virtually a government of Germany through the Control Commission, and I must operate on that basis.

Administration, Frankfurt

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the constitution and functions of the reorganised German administration established in Frankfurt; what are the powers and limitations of the economic council and labour directorate operating under the new scheme; how far is currency reform contemplated; and what are the dollar drawings involved.

Mr. Bevin: The Constitution and functions of the reorganised German Administration in Frankfurt, and the powers and limitations of the Economic Council, are set out in British Military Government

Ordinance No. 126, a copy of which I will place in the Library. There is as yet no bizonal labour directorate, but it has been agreed in principle that one shall be established. Its organisation and powers are now under consideration. As to the last two parts of the Question, a quadripartite plan for currency reform has for some time been under discussion in Berlin. I am not sure to what the hon. Member is referring in the last part of the Question, but I can assure him that no dollar drawings are involved in any of the arrangements I have described.

Sir P. Hannon: Is the right hon. Gentleman now satisfied that this new organised instrument of government in Germany will tend to the promotion of better relations throughout Germany, both in regard to the administration and the German people themselves?

Mr. Bevin: I think so.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Why was the new currency for Western Germany not introduced immediately after the breakdown of the London Conference, and does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that, as long as the currency is not introduced into Western Germany, conditions of commercial chaos will persist?

Mr. Bevin: I recognise our difficulty over currency reform, but we have already been discussing this question of currency reform on the Quadripartite Council. It was deemed unwise, I think very wisely, not to break off these talks simply because the Conference in London broke down. There are difficulties, but the discussions are going on and we do not regard the breakdown in London as inevitably final yet.

Mr. Sharp: Is it proposed that there should be any time limit to the quadripartite discussions on Germany?

Mr. Bevin: Yes.

Soviet Zone (War Potential)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far His Majesty's Government are satisfied with the reduction of the German war potential in the Soviet zone of Germany, and, in particular, in the area of Peenemunde, and if he will give the latest information he has received regarding this matter.

Mr. Bevin: I have not sufficient information to make a reliable estimate of the progress made.

Major Beamish: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the information he has causes him any disquiet?

Mr. Bevin: Well, I could not get up with my hand on my heart and say that I am perfectly satisfied.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRIESTE (TREATY REVISION PROPOSALS)

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to Article 21 of the Peace Treaty with Italy, whereby the integrity and independence of the Free Territory of Trieste is guaranteed by the Security Council, the question of modification of that Treaty was submitted to the Security Council prior to the Government's decision in collaboration with the United States and French Governments, to advocate the return of Trieste to Italian sovereignty.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the proposed cession to Italy of the Free Territory of Trieste.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Trieste and on the reasons for the issue at this time of the Anglo-French-American proposal that the Free Territory of Trieste should be returned to Italy.

Mr. Bevin: Hon. Members will have read the declaration which has been published. This declaration makes it clear that the Governments of the United States, France and the United Kingdom consider that negotiations should be started at once for the revision of those clauses of the Italian Peace Treaty which established the Free Territory of Trieste. They have, therefore, proposed to the Soviet Government, which was the fourth great Power primarily responsible for the drafting of the Treaty, and to the Italian Government, as the other Power directly affected, that negotiations to this end should be started at once. My hon. Friend, the Member for Norwood (Mr. Chamberlain) has raised the question of

the Security Council, to which the powers entrusted a special responsibility in this connection. The declaration proposes that any arrangements which the Powers reach for a revision of the relevant clauses should then be submitted for consideration to the Security Council.
The Yugoslav Embassies in London, Washington and Paris were also officially informed of this proposal shortly before the announcement was made.
The history of recent months has shown that the Peace Treaty provisions for setting up Trieste as a Free Territory have been made unworkable; the three Governments have now become convinced that the only satisfactory solution from both the economic and political standpoint is the reversion of the Territory to Italian sovereignty. Having reached this conclusion, the three Governments thought it best to say so.
We have received a reply from the Italian Government stating that they are ready to negotiate a protocol in accordance with our proposal. We now await the reply of the Soviet Government. The House will understand that I do not want to be drawn into any discussions which might hamper our chances of reaching a solution of this urgent problem by direct negotiation.

Mr. Chamberlain: Since my right hon. Friend stated in this House that Trieste is directly under the control and protection of the Security Council, would it not have been wiser, from every point of view, first to have submitted the proposal through the Security Council, even if there was an election going on in Italy?

Mr. Bevin: That has nothing to do with the election. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, I did not accuse the Soviet Government of an election manoeuvre, when they proposed, in spite of the Four Power Commission, to hand the colonies back to Italy, and I do not think, alternatively, that I ought to be accused. The fact is that this House has been pressing us to reduce the troops and to get them home, and it was understood, when the Treaty was signed, that this place would be evacuated and the men brought home within four months of the date of the Treaty being signed, and we have not been able to do that. We cannot get agreement on the setting up of the Free


Territory. Therefore, we came to the conclusion, in the light of this, among other situations on which we are at a deadlock, to try to break the deadlock by this proposal.

Mr. Warbey: Is it not the case that the Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste was formally adopted and approved by the United Nations, and, therefore, would it not be necessary to call a Special Assembly of the United Nations in order that the matter of the revision or cancellation of the Statute could be submitted to it?

Mr. Bevin: We undertook that, if any matter arose out of this Treaty with the Four Powers who made it, they should consult, and I have proceeded on that basis. The next step that would have to be taken, if we arrive at an agreement, is to report the matter to the United Nations. From memory, I cannot remember off-hand the exact Clause in the Charter under which we operate.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the satisfaction that his decision will cause on this side of the House, and would he undertake to keep the House informed of the progress of developments in regard not only to the submission of future details to the Security Council, but in any other way?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly?

Mr. Driberg: If this proposal has nothing to do with the Italian elections, would it not have been better for all the great Powers who are appearing to interfere in these elections to have waited just three weeks longer, and so have avoided inflaming further an already inflammable situation?

Mr. Bevin: I think that question might be addressed to Moscow.

Professor Savory: Are we to understand that the proposal is that the zone at present occupied by the Yugoslavs is also to be restored to Italy?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly, that is the proposal.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Foreign Secretary, in view of his statement that the Four Powers should consult, why he did not arrange for the Four Powers to consult, instead of three Powers issuing a declaration? Is he also aware

of the fact that the hon. Member for Malden (Mr. Driberg) is not responsible for answering questions in Moscow, but that the right hon. Gentleman himself is responsible for answering questions here? Will he try to show a little more courtesy to hon. Members on this side of the House?

Mr. Bevin: I do not know why the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) should be so thin-skinned about it. I am addressed daily, not through diplomatic channels, but over the wireless and through "Pravda."

Mr. Chamberlain: Would my right hon. Friend at least bear in mind that the demise of the League of Nations started when its machinery was by-passed?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARAB STATES (BRITISH WAR MATERIAL)

Mr. Chamberlain: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to Arab States receiving supplies of British war material in regard to its utilisation in connection with the Palestine dispute.

Mr. Bevin: The attention of the Arab Governments concerned has been drawn to the statement publicly made on behalf of His Majesty's Government that our commitments to supply them with military material will be reconsidered if we find that any of this material is being diverted to Palestine.

Mr. Chamberlain: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this is being observed?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, so far as I have been able to ascertain, it is.

Oral Answers to Questions — DANUBIAN CONFERENCE

Major Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the fact that the Peace Treaties for Roumania, Bulgaria and Hungary came into force more than six months ago, he will describe the arrangements that have been made for the conference at which the riparian States will be represented to formulate a policy in accordance with the principles of free trade and navigation on the Danube, laid down in the Peace Treaties with the above-mentioned countries.

Mr. Bevin: The hon. and gallant Member is presumably referring to the confercen which, according to the declaration of the Council of Foreign Ministers published on 7th December, 1946, should have been called within six months of the coming into force of the peace treaties with Roumania, Bulgaria and Hungary to work out a new convention regarding the régime of navigation on the Danube. These peace treaties came into force on 15th September, 1947. On 27th February, 1948, the United States Government addressed Notes to the Ambassadors in Washington of France, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom proposing that the period within which the conference should be called should be extended to the end of 1948. His Majesty's Government on 13th March expressed agreement with this proposal. The Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have replied proposing that the conference should be called to meet as soon as possible, at any rate not later than April or May, 1948. His Majesty's Government are examining this proposal.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN COLONIES

Colonial Service Salaries, East Africa

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects the Salary Commission will complete the review of Colonial Service Salaries in East Africa.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I expect to receive the report of the Commission at the end of this month.

Mr. Hurd: Is the Minister aware that district officers and others lower in the hierarchy, who are doing excellent work in East Africa, have not yet received any increase, whereas the senior officials have, and when such increases are made, will he make them retrospective?

Mr. Creech Jones: I cannot answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but it was because of this that the Commission was appointed.

Gold Coast (Emergency Powers Order)

Mr. Julius Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any statement to make with regard to the recent arrest of six members of the United Gold Coast Convention.

Mr. Creech Jones: It is provided in the emergency regulations made under the Emergency Powers Order in Council, 1939, that the Governor may detain and remove by order any person for the purpose of public safety and the maintenance of public order. In the opinion of the Governor and of his advisers it became necessary, on information received as to the activities and intentions of these six persons, to make such orders to restrict their movements, and orders were accordingly made on 13th March. The Governor has emphasised that his action is purely preventive and in the interests of public safety. The persons in question are not under detention, but their movements are restricted to a certain area. The orders will, of course, be subject to review, and the six persons will be given every opportunity of appearing before the Commission of Inquiry which is shortly to proceed to the Gold Coast from this country.

Mr. Silverman: Am I to understand from my right hon. Friend's answer that no charge is being preferred against these men, and that there is no evidence to support a charge?

Mr. Creech Jones: The action of the Governor was due to the emergency arising from certain activities of this group of men.

Mr. Frank Byers: Is it not a fact that far greater power has been taken within the last fortnight than has ever been required in this country or the Gold Coast since 1939, and would the Minister give an explanation as to why it has suddenly become necessary to use in peacetime powers which were never exercised in this country in wartime?

Mr. Creech Jones: A very grave emergency arose in the Gold Coast, but the Commission of Inquiry will be making the fullest investigation into the whole matter.

Mr. Carmichael: Is it not the case that these six men were restricted in their movements because of their activity in the trade union world and their attempt to organise the workers there?

Mr. Creech Jones: Most emphatically not.

Mr. Donner: Is it not a fact that there is the utmost confidence in the judgment and experience of the Governor?

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that, along with the arrest of these men, the Governor has issued a statement controlling the Press in the manner stated in this document, which is something that has never applied before in any Colony, and will the Minister put an end to this position?

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is it not also a fact that, on this occasion, a number of lives was lost, and would it not be better to await the report of the Commission of Inquiry which can give us both sides of the case?

Mr. Frank Byers: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an application has been made to the courts in the Gold Coast, on behalf of the six men recently arrested under the Government's Emergency Powers, for a writ of habeas corpus; whether such application was or was not entertained, and whether he will give an assurance that no action has been taken by the Government of the Gold Coast to prevent the courts entertaining such application.

Mr. Creech Jones: According to information received from the Governor, no application had been made to the court for a writ of habeas corpus up to 21st March. I understand that the Emergency Regulations at present in force in the Gold Coast contain a provision to the effect that no legal proceedings may be brought calling into question the legality of anything done under the particular regulation under which the movements of the six men were restricted.

Mr. Byers: Is it not a matter of elementary justice that an individual in a British Colony in any part of the world should be allowed at least to apply for a writ of habeas corpus? May we have an explanation as to why this totalitarian power has suddenly been clamped down, which is a complete denial of the rule of law and of the individual liberty of the subject?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am not aware that that is the position. These powers were given under the 1939 Order. It is quite true that an emergency had arisen which compelled the Governor to secure the dispersal of these men, otherwise certain consequences of very grave danger to the Colony would have followed.

Mr. Byers: Can an application now be made by these individuals for a writ of habeas corpus, and will it be entertained in the court?

Mr. Creech Jones: I must have notice of that question.

Mr. Byers: But it is in the Question.

Mr. Creech Jones: I understand that so far no application has been made, but if an application were made it is very likely that under these regulations it would not lie.

Mr. Pritt: Could the Minister tell us in how many Colonies similar legislation exists, and could he define a police State?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am informed that this is not peculiar to the Gold Coast.

Mr. Byers: I wish to give notice that owing to the most unsatisfactory nature of the situation and of the reply, I shall take the earliest opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Uganda Cotton Fund

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what payments have been made to the growers from the Uganda Cotton Fund since its inception; what amount is now held in the fund; and when and on what projects it is proposed to expend this amount.

Mr. Creech Jones: No payments have been made to growers, but £406,000 has been expended on various purposes of benefit to the cotton areas. The Fund stands at present at some £6,680,000. Proposals for closing it at the end of the current season and for the expenditure of the balance are shortly to be laid before the Uganda Legislative Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD (CAURA DAM)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why work on the Caura Dam, Port of Spain, Trinidad, has been stopped, after £500,000 has already been spent on its partial construction; and whether, in view of its importance to the people of Port of Spain, it is intended to complete this dam.

Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the financial position Of the Colony, the Legislative Council have decided that funds to


complete the construction of the Caura Dam cannot be spared at present. This decision will not affect existing supplies of water to Port of Spain. The question whether the dam should be completed is a matter for the local Government, who will no doubt give sympathetic consideration to the matter as soon as financial circumstances permit.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA (AIRPORT)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much was spent in the construction of the airport in Mackenzie, British Guiana; what are the reasons for choosing this site; and what are the reasons for this airport being a complete loss to the Government.

Mr. Creech Jones: £174,900 was spent during the war on the construction of the airport at Mackenzie, British Guiana. The site was chosen because it was the nearest place to Georgetown where an airfield could be constructed quickly and at reasonable cost. The airport is no longer used by civil aircraft, as Atkinson Field, in the U.S. leased base, which is nearer to Georgetown, subsequently became available for civil use.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the loss associated with this, can the Minister say why no inquiry is being made into the reason for stopping here and spending all this money?

Mr. Creech Jones: This airfield was necessary during the war, and no loss has been incurred.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAURITIUS

Government Employees (Salaries)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been sent to the joint request of the Mauritius Railway Workers' Union, the Teachers' Union and the Government Employees' Association, for increased salaries for all Government employees, in view of the greatly increased cost of living; and why the Mauritius Government has proposed increases for senior officers without any increases for lower-grade workers.

Mr. Creech Jones: I assume the hon. Member refers to a joint request from the

three unions for increases in cost-of-living allowances. No joint request for increased salaries has been received. Proposals submitted by the Governor of Mauritius for increases in cost-of-living allowances for all grades, but giving greater proportionate benefit to the lower and middle ranks, have recently received my approval. As regards the last part of the Question, proposals for increasing the salaries of certain posts were submitted by the Governor last year on the grounds that the salaries assigned to these particular posts in 1945 were inadequate. These proposals covered a number of both senior and subordinate posts.

Mr. Greenwood: Will my right hon. Friend say what delay occurred between receiving these requests and complying with them, and whether he is satisfied that the negotiating machinery is satisfactory?

Mr. Creech Jones: At the moment, I believe it is, but the first request was made in 1945, and subsequent adjustments have been made.

Food Prices

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the rising price of food in Mauritius, he will inquire into the conduct of markets and the whole operation of food control in the Colony.

Mr. Creech Jones: Almost all basic foodstuffs are imported, and increases in their landed price are outside the control of the Government of Mauritius. The Government do, however, regulate supplies and prices to the consumer by rationing, subsidisation and price control. Profit margins are reviewed periodically and most were reduced about June, 1947. I understand that the Supplies Control Organisation is operating efficiently.

Mr. Greenwood: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the steps to which he has referred, the price of flour is now three times what it was before the war—it has increased 20 cents per lb. during the last three months—and, in view of this statement, will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Creech Jones: This matter is under the constant supervision of the Colony, and flour is actually subsidised.

Transport System

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action is being taken to remedy the losses on the railway system in Mauritius; what plans are in hand for the electrification of the railway from Curepipe to Port Louis; and whether the whole transport system of the island will now be investigated.

Mr. Creech Jones: The Government of Mauritius have for some time been giving close attention to the whole problem of rail and road transport in the island, and investigations are now being carried out by an Economic Commission and by the local Government's consulting town planning adviser. I am advised that electrification is impracticable.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (COMMUNISTS AND FASCISTS)

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that those who are dismissed from Government service on account of their Communist or Fascist associations will be unqualifiedly guaranteed against loss of in, come, even in the event of their meeting prolonged difficulty in finding alternative employment at a salary and with a status comparable to the employment from which they were dismissed.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir.

Sir R. Acland: Would the Prime Minister recognise that there would at least seem to be victimisation if people are dismissed and deprived of their incomes without being able to appear before some tribunal where they can state their case according to the ordinary rules of law?

Mr. Attlee: That seems rather far from the Question.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Will any of these civil servants so dismissed be at liberty to apply for any of the vacant posts which have arisen in the Commonwealth Party since 1945?

Sir R. Acland: I wish to give notice, perhaps rather optimistically, that I will do my best to raise this matter tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Milk Deliveries, London

Mr. Teeling: asked the Minister of Food why milkmen are not allowed to deliver milk in London before 7 a.m.; and whether the wartime regulation prohibiting this can now be withdrawn.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): Restrictions on very early morning deliveries of milk were imposed to secure economies in distribution. My right hon. Friend does not consider that the resumption of these deliveries would justify the extra cost at the present.

Mr. Teeling: Does the hon. Lady realise that this regulation affects milkmen's holidays? They wish to go to seaside resorts on their day off, and they are unable to do so because of this regulation. They have to deliver their milk first. Could some exception be made?

Dr. Summerskill: I should welcome evidence of what the hon. Gentleman tells me. My experience is that the milkmen welcome this regulation.

Mr. Osborne: What financial economies have been effected by this regulation?

Dr. Summerskill: This is a question of economising not in money, but in manpower.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: What discussions have taken place with the appropriate trade union on this matter?

Dr. Summerskill: Discussions have taken place on many occasions.

Extra Cheese Ration

Mr. Bowden: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the anomalies in the present method of issuing the extra cheese ration; that men engaged on the same horticultural and agricultural work find that some receive the extra ration whilst others do not; that gravediggers are not included whilst men tending flower beds in the same cemetery often do receive the extra ration; and if he will reorganise the scheme to give a more equitable distribution.

Dr. Summerskill: I am afraid that what appear to be hard cases are bound to arise when a concession is limited to workers in well-defined categories. Workers


insured under the agricultural scheme qualify for extra cheese, and I regret that we are unable to extend the special cheese ration to the other workers referred to.

Mr. Bowden: Will my hon. Friend consider this matter again with a view to introducing qualification according to the type of work actually done?

Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend has referred to gravediggers. I think he will agree that cemeteries, for obvious reasons, are near built-up areas, and for that reason it is possible for gravediggers to avail themselves of existing catering facilities.

Social Functions (Meals, Amended Order)

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Food if he will indicate the chief reasons or the changed circumstances that persuaded him to withdraw the Order limiting the number of guests outlined in the Meals and Establishments Order; and if he will reconsider the total limit of costs, excluding drinks, as being excessive, under present conditions.

Dr. Summerskill: In answer to the first part of the Question I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) on 10th March. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "No."

Mr. Harrison: In any future consideration of this matter will, the Minister bear in mind that for 12s. 6d. one can obtain a really hefty meal?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Where?

Mr. Harrison: Will the Minister also consider the fact that most people will not accept the story that only an inconsiderable amount of extra food is consumed in this manner?

Dr. Summerskill: I would remind my hon. Friend that in many provincial towns the only catering establishments available for this kind of dinner have house charges up to 7s. 6d., and that, therefore, it was necessary to make the Order flexible.

Rationed Food Sales (Licensed Premises)

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Food if the will state the number of premises, licensed to sell liquor, where the licensee has applied for a licence to sell rationed foods during the last 12 months, as compared to the previous 12 months.

Dr. Summerskill: I have no information as to the number of applicants for retail licences or catering licences who are already licensed to sell liquor.

Mr. Harrison: Is the Minister fully aware that most of our local food committees are being inundated with applications for licences of this kind to enable rationed articles to be sold, and will she look into the matter to ascertain why there is this inordinate demand for these licences?

Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me the name of the food committee he has in mind.

Feedingstuffs

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that Holland has purchased a substantial quantity of coconut cake from the British Protectorate of Zanzibar; and why his Department did not buy this valuable feedingstuff to increase the milk supply in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. The total quantity of coconut cake available in Zanzibar is never substantial. Our total purchases of oilcakes, including those obtained from home production, have already completed the quantity to which we are entitled under international allocation.

Mr. Hurd: Is not the Minister aware that 4,000 tons of coconut cake have been sold by Zanzibar to Holland, and is this not another instance of the better results obtained by private enterprise rather than by bulk purchase?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir, I am not aware of that fact. Holland bought from 50 to 100 tons of this material during the last six months.

Mr. Spence: Does the hon. Lady's answer mean that we are tied by the allocations of the I.E.F.C. to the amount of


oilcake that we buy, or are we entitled to buy a greater amount outside the I.E.F.C.?

Dr. Summerskill: We are still tied to the allocations of the I.E.F.C.

Mr. Hurd: Does that apply to the British Colonies as well?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir.

Overseas Food Parcels

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that a firm, about whom he has been supplied with information, is canvassing food parcels from abroad; and whether he will take steps to stop this practice.

Dr. Summerskill: The attention of this firm has already been drawn to the fact that it is illegal for persons in the United Kingdom to purchase parcels containing rationed foods to be sent from abroad, either to themselves or to any other persons in this country.

Mr. Haire: Does my hon. Friend propose to take any legal action in this case, and will she not attempt to recover for the purchasers some of the most excessive charges made?

Dr. Summerskill: We have communicated with this firm and they have undertaken not to do it again.

Mr. Haire: Is my hon. Friend aware that the circular I sent to her has a very recent date on it?

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, but the Order only came into operation on 7th March.

Cabbages

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Food if he intends to adjust the price of cabbages so that a suitable return is made to the growers, and at the same time bring down the price to the consumers, in view of the comparative glut of this vegetable and the continuance of the high retail price.

Dr. Summerskill: Cabbage prices are not controlled and to impose maximum prices would be unlikely to have the effect desired by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Harrison: May I ask what the hon. Lady proposes to do about the position? A fortnight or three weeks ago farmers

in wide stretches of the country were ploughing back this particularly valuable food, and receiving for those they did sell only three-farthings a pound, although at the same time they cost 4d. to 6d. in open market.

Dr. Summerskill: I can assure the hon. Member that it is not in the interests of the farmer or the retailer to impose maximum prices in conditions of glut.

Groundnuts Scheme (Appointment)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Food what position is to be given to Mr. Th. Juncker in the East African Groundnut Production scheme; and whether before the appointment was made consideration was given to the fact that he served a two years' sentence of imprisonment recently in Denmark for collaboration with the German occupying power, and to the fact that he was responsible for a memorandum on the problem of German living space, which included a plan for the administration of German Colonies to be acquired as a result of victory over England.

Dr. Summerskill: Mr. Juncker has not been appointed to any post in, or in connection with, the East African Groundnuts Scheme, and I understand that he has not at any time been considered for any such appointment.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is the hon. Lady aware that an article recently appeared in a Danish newspaper stating that Mr. Juncker was shortly to be appointed to this responsible position by His Majesty's Government; and is she further aware that it has caused widespread resentment amongst the Danish people, and will steps be taken to reassure them?

Mr. Speaker: Statements in newspaper articles are not really any information at all.

Dr. Summerskill: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we know nothing at all about Mr. Juncker and we are not interested in him, but it may satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman to know that we have informed the Danish Foreign Office of that fact.

Eire (Food Production)

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Minister of Food the details of the com-


prehensive three-year scheme promoted jointly by the British Government and the Government of Eire for the improvement of Irish egg and poultry production, the cost of which will be borne in equal shares by both Governments; and if a similar project can be arranged to pig raising in Eire, with the object of enlarging the sources of food supply for this country.

Dr. Summerskill: I have nothing to add to the announcement made on 29th January about the scheme for the improvement of the Eire poultry industry: and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of this. There is no prospect of imports of pig meat from Eire in the near future, and it is, therefore, too early to discuss a similar scheme for the pig industry.

Sir P. Hannon: Will the hon. Lady discuss the possibility of this, and will she have further consultations with the Eire Government on the subject, in order to encourage production?

Dr. Summerskill: I can assure the hon. Member that it was discussed with the officials of Eire in November and they thought it was a little premature because of the shortage of feedingstuffs.

Mr. Drayson: Is the hon. Lady aware that there is considerable resentment among poultry breeders in this country at this assistance being given to the South of Ireland and not to Great Britain?

Non-alcoholic Grape-juice

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that religious bodies are unable to obtain nonalcoholic grape-juice; and whether he will permit importation of this for such purpose from soft currency countries.

Dr. Summerskill: The importation of grape-juice from soft currency countries to meet the requirements of religious bodies is already permitted.

Mr. Freeman: In view of that, may I ask the hon. Lady if she will let me have the name and address of someone in London from whom it can be obtained?

Mr. House: Is the hon. Lady aware that the importation of fruit juices generally is far too low, having regard to their health attributes?

Dr. Summerskill: I suggest that the hon. Member should buy fruit, of which there is plenty on the market, and squeeze it.

Major Beamish: Is the hon. Lady aware that, whatever the shortage in nonalcoholic drink—and we very much hope something may be done about it—far more people are concerned with the shortage of alcoholic drinks?

Beverages (Inquiry)

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of Food whether the inquiry being conducted by the Food Marketing Board Research Bureau, Job No. 10515, asking housewives to fill in for the period of a week the names of all beverages taken by their families, the names of the members of the family who drank the beverage, how many cups were taken on each occasion and whether with or without food, is being conducted on behalf of his Ministry, and, if so, what is the purpose of this inquiry.

Dr. Summerskill: This inquiry is not being conducted on behalf of the Ministry of Food. The second part of the Question does not therefore, arise.

Milk (Registrations)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Food if he is now able to agree that consumers may change their registrations for milk if they so desire.

Dr. Summerskill: It has been decided to give consumers an opportunity to change their milkman between 3rd May and 15th May next. The new registrations will be operative as from 30th May. One further recommendation of the Williams' Report has also been adopted, namely, that it will not be possible to increase milk retailers margins to cover any additional costs which it may be claimed may result from consumers' changing their milkmen. In the circumstances, milk distributors will be free to refuse new customers if they so desire.

Mr. Lipson: Is the hon. Lady aware that that announcement will be received with very great satisfaction?

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Is the hon. Lady aware that this decision, taken at this time, will lead to far greater milk distribution costs and a greater use of manpower and petrol?

Dr. Summerskill: Not necessarily. That is why the addendum was made that retailers, if they like, can refuse customers.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING PASSAGES (FORM S. 68)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Transport if he has now taken steps to require the directors of Fyffe's Line to correct their misstatement that intending passengers have to state the colour of their complexions in order to comply with Government requirements; and with what result.

Mr. Simmons (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The company has been approached and has volunteered to remove this item from its form.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Lord President of the Council and the Leader of the House of Commons whether he has any statement to make on public Business?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for the first week after the Easter Recess will be as follows:
Tuesday, 6th April, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.
Wednesday and Thursday, 7th and 8th April.—General Debate on the Budget Resolutions and the economic situation.
Friday, 9th April—Committee and remaining stages of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill and, if there is time, Report and Third Reading of the Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Bill. As the House knows, there will be a resumption of the Debate on the Budget and the economic situation in the following week.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is possible to find time to debate a Motion standing in the name of myself and the names of some 200 hon. Members of this House on the subject of petrol for purposes of blood sports, or better still will he make such a Debate unnecessary by talking to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture like a Dutch uncle and showing him the way out of the difficulty?

[That, in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable in present circumstances, when most owners of motor cars and motor cycles are unable to obtain petrol, that petrol should be allocated for purposes of stag-hunting, fox-hunting and other blood sports which cannot be regarded as being conducive to good agriculture, the effective use of manpower, or the efficient extermination of vermin.]

Mr. Morrison: I confess I cannot catch up with all these signatures which are happening day by day in the House. I am afraid I cannot find special time for this Motion, but I will convey the observations of my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has now been briefed in the matter of the emoluments of the Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would it be in order to suggest that somebody should be sacked?

Mr. McGovern: May I ask whether there is any intention shortly of introducing legislation to deal with the eviction of shopkeepers in Glasgow, or whether it is true that the Government as a whole are responsible for holding back legislation on this subject?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member knows the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility to the House and I do not need to give him explanations about it. I dealt with this last week, and I am afraid I cannot add to it. The matter is engaging the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Edward Evans: May I ask my right hon. Friend when he proposes to introduce legislation to deal with protection against coast erosion, as promised by the Prime Minister in January, 1947?

Mr. Morrison: Not in the week under review, Sir.

Mr. Osborne: In the Budget discussions will hon. Members be able to raise matters arising out of the Economic Survey, or shall we be limited?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, certainly—subject to Mr. Speaker's Ruling, that is the intention.

Mr. Carmichael: Arising out of a previous answer, may I ask whether we may take it that the entire responsibility for delay in regard to legislation for the shopkeepers in Scotland rests on the shoulders of the Secretary of State for Scotland and not on the Cabinet as a whole?

Mr. Morrison: If I may say so, that is not a fair question. The Departmental Minister must be answerable to the House and, in answering in the House, he is, of course, speaking for the Government. That is the doctrine, and I think it would he wrong from the point of view of Parliamentary Government to make this distinction between Ministers and the Government as a whole.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I ask you, Sir, in reference to the Budget Debate, whether you would like to make a statement now, or later, on the conduct of the Debate as to whether there will be any differentiation in the treatment of subjects as between the first three days and the last two?

Mr. Speaker: The noble Lord asks me to make a statement. May I remind him I know nothing about the Budget or the

conduct of the Debate on it. We shall be in Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. Scollan: Referring to the question of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), if it is the case that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not responsible for the legislation, are we to take it that the Government have definitely made up their minds they are going to do nothing in this matter?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question on the Business for the next week, or on the Business of the House, but a matter of policy.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

House to meet Tomorrow at Eleven o'Clock; no Questions to be taken after Twelve o'Clock; and at Five o'Clock Mr. Speaker to adjourn the House without Question put.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

ADJOURNMENT (EASTER)

House, at its rising To-morrow, to adjourn till Tuesday, 6th April.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 267; Noes, 92.

Division No. 107.
AYES
[3.31 p.m.


Actand, Sir Richard
Field, Capt. W. J.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Foilick, M.
Marquand, H. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Forman, J. C.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Alpass, J. H.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mayhew, C. P.


Attewell, H. C.
Gallacher, W.
Mellish, R. J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Austin, H. Lewis
Gibson, C. W
Millington, Wing-Comdr, E. R


Ayles, W. H.
Gilzean, A.
Mitchison, G. R.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Monslow, W.


Bacon, Miss A.
Greenwood, A W. J. (Heywood)
Moody, A. S.


Balfour, A.
Grey, C. F.
Morley, R.


Barton, C.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Battley, J. R.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, E.)


Benson, G.
Gunter, R. J.
Moyle, A.


Berry, H.
Guy, W. H.
Nally, W.


Beswick, F
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Naylor, T. E.


Bevin, Rt. Hon E. (Wandsworth C.)
Hale, Leslie
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Blackburn, A. R.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Oldfield, W. H.


Blyton, W. R.
Hardman, D. R
Oliver, G. H


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Hardy, E. A.
Paget, R. T.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Harrison, J.
Parker, J.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Parkin, B. T.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hewitson, Capt. M
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hobson, C. R
Pearson, A.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Holman, P.
Peart, T. F.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
House, G.
Perrins, W.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hoy, J.
Piratin, P.


Burden, T. W.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Carmichael, James
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Pritt, D. N.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Proctor, W T


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Pryde, D. J.


Champion, A. J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Chater, D.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Randall, H E


Chetwynd, G. R
Janner, B.
Ranger, J.


Cluse, W. S.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Rankin, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Johnston, D. H.
Rees-Williams, D. R


Coldrick, W
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Reeves, J.


Collick, P.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Collindridge, F.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Rhodes, H.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Richards, R.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Keenan, W.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M


Crawley, A.
Kendall, W. D
Robens, A.


Cunningham, P
Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Daggar, G.
Key, C. W
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Daines, P.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Rogers, G. H. R


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Kinley, J.
Royle, C.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lang, G.
Scollan, T


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lawson, Rt. Hon J. J.
Segal, Dr. S.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shackleton, E. A. A


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Sharp, Granville


Delargy, H. J.
Leonard, W
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Diamond, J.
Leslie, J R
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H (St Helens)


Dodds, N. N.
Levy, B. W.
Shurmer, P


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lindgren, G. S
Silverman, J (Erdington)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Silverman, S. S (Nelson)


Dumpleton, C. W
Lipson, D. L.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Durbin, E. F. M
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Dye, S.
Longden, F.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lyne, A. W.
Snow, J W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C (Bedwellty)
McAdam, W.
Solley, L. J.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McEntee, V. La T
Sorensen, R. W


Edwards, W J (Whitechapel)
McGhee, H. G
Sparks, J A


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McGovern, J.
Stamford, W.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mack, J. D.
Stross, Dr. B.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stubbs, A. E.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mackay, R W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Fairhurst, F.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Sylvester, G. O.


Farthing, W. J.
McLeavy, F.
Symonds, A. L.


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)




Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wadsworth, G.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Walkden, E.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Warbey, W. N.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Watkins, T. E.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Weitzman, D.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Thurtle, Ernest
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J


Tiffany, S.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Woods, G. S.


Timmons, J.
West, D. G.
Wyatt, W.


Titterington, M. F
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J
Yates, V. F.


Tolley, L.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Turner-Samuels, M.
Wigg, George



Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Wilkes, L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. Simmons and Mr. G. Wallace.


Viant, S. P.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)





NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Amory, D. Heathooat
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Mullan, Lt. C. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Baxter, A. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Odey, G. W.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Howard, Hon. A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Bossom, A C.
Hurd, A.
Osborne, C.


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Keeling, E. H.
Ramsay, Maj S.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Butcher, H. W.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Channon, H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Savory, Prof. D. L


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Scott, Lord W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Spence, H. R


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


De la Bère, R.
Maclean, F. H. R.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dedds-Parker, A. D.
MacLeod, J.
Teeling, William


Donner, P. W.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G. C.


Drayson, G. B.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col., Rt. Hon. W.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)



Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Mellor, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Graham-Little, Sir E.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Mr. Studholme and


Grimston, R. V.
Morris-Jones, Sir H
Brigadler Thorp.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 17th March].

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

CLAUSE 3.—(Adaptation of 7 & 8 Geo. 6. c. 41.)

3 40 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: The first Amendment I shall call is in page 4, line 1, which stands in the name of the Home Secretary. I understand that it meets the convenience of the Committee to have a general Debate on redistribution on this Amendment.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, at the end, to insert:
(a) in rule 1, in the table showing the number of constituencies, for the words '591,' there shall be substituted the words '613.'
This Amendment amends rule 1 in the Third Schedule of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944. That rule requires that the number of constituencies in Great Britain shall not be substantially greater or less than 591. That is a somewhat unusually vague definition to put into an Act of Parliament. In fact, the Report of the Boundary Commissioners provided for 596 seats in Great Britain. The exact point at which a number ceases to be substantially greater or less than a given number must always be a matter for argument. After examining the Report of the Boundary Commissioners, the Government came to the conclusion that, in order to meet the various points which were raised on the Second Reading, it was desirable to create 17 additional seats, which would make 22 seats more than 591. I suppose that there are certain circumstances in which it might be held that 613 is not substantially greater than 591. We have thought it desirable that we should make the rule coincide with the number of seats which the Bill, as drafted and as amended by Government Amendments, would give us.
There has been very considerable play made, during the discussions on this Bill,

with the failure of the Boundary Commission to achieve anything approximating to the principle of one vote, one value. In my remarks on Second Reading, I said that the Government would listen carefully to what was said on the subject of the size of constituencies. The first thing we have to bear in mind is that Scotland and Wales are guaranteed, I think rightly, a minimum number of seats. Scotland must have no fewer than 71 seats, and Wales must have no fewer than 35, and these 106 seats have to be taken out of whatever number is put into this rule before we arrive at what will be the approximate number of seats for England. As a matter of fact, the first Report suggested 35 seats for Wales, and the Second 36.
This minimum rule involves a substantial under-representation for England. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) pointed out on Second Reading, England were given seats on the same basis as Scotland, it would have 90 more seats in the House of Commons, and if the representation of England were increased by 9o, no Scottish grievance would be created on any basis of the proportional representation of the electorate in this House. If England had the same representation as Wales, it would have 67 more seats than were allocated by the Boundary Commission.
I will admit straightaway that there are certain parts of Scotland and certain parts of Wales where the population is so sparse that it is right to regard them as having a claim to additional representation, so that Members may be able to deal with the large and scattered constituencies which exist in the mountainous parts of these two countries. That was the basis on which this minimum representation was given to them. It would appear that no substantial injustice will be done to Scotland or Wales if some slight additional representation is given to England in the House of Commons.
As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) in his speech in Committee earlier, the proposed House of Commons will be, with the exception of the House of Commons which sat from 1922 to 1945, the smallest House of Commons that has existed since the Act of Union with Ireland. From 1801, when the Act of


Union was passed, until 1885, the number of seats in the House of Commons was 658. At the General Election of 1885, 670 Members were returned, and that remained the membership of the House of Commons until the Representation of the People Act, 1918, when the figure was raised to 707. The figure of 615 was reached after the Irish troubles, when the representation of Ireland was reduced by 92. The figure of 615 continued until the General Election of 1945, when it was temporarily increased to 640. I think it has been agreed on both sides that there is no magic about the figure which should be the size of the membership of the House of Commons. I certainly laid down that principle on Second Reading.
I now wish to deal with another disparity in the representation in the House. The Boundary Commissioners' Report for England and Wales produced an average electorate per constituency of 58,705 for England. The borough constituencies have an average of 61,442, or 2,737 above the general average. The average electorate in the county division is 55,360, which is less than the general average by 3,345. Between the average borough and the average county constituency there is a difference of 6,082. While the Government accept the view that there is a reason for giving a county division some advantage in numbers, we believe that a disparity as big as that cannot be justified in the case of England. We have, therefore, examined the proposals which were placed before us by the Boundary Commission to see in what way this disparity could be redressed. The Boundary Commissioners themselves drew attention to eight boroughs in England each with an electorate of over 80,000—Battersea, Blackburn, East Ham, Gateshead, Hammersmith, Norwich, Paddington and Reading. Eighty thousand electors, running up to 88,000, are, in the opinion of the Government, too many electors for one Member adequately to represent in this House.
In 1832, the 658 Members then returned represented a total electorate of approximately one million. But the range of Government activity, the way in which government affected the lives of the people in matters like pensions and social services, had hardly commenced in those days, and the vast correspondence that Members now receive, dealing with all sorts of intimate details, was not known

to the Member of Parliament of those days. To expect any Member adequately to represent 80,0oo electors in this House, and to do his duty to them and to the House, is, in our view, expecting too much of any Member of Parliament. We received from the Boundary Commissioners an indication of the way in which these constituencies could be divided if we thought they were too large. We have decided——

Mr. Osbert Peake: When did the right hon. Gentleman receive this indication from the Boundary Commissioners?

Mr. Ede: I think it was three or four months ago, but I will get the exact date and let the Committee know during the Debate.

Mr. Churchill: Is it in their Report?

Mr. Ede: No.

Mr. Churchill: It has not been made public?

Mr. Ede: I will endeavour to give the right hon. Gentleman the information he wants. It has been made public in the White Paper which was published, I think, on Friday last. The divisions of these boroughs are those recommended by the Boundary Commissioners. Frankly, I am not going to be responsible for the division of any borough—the single Member borough, to be divided into two; or the larger Member borough, to be divided into a certain number of constituencies of more than two. All the proposed divisions which are included in Amendments to the Bill are those which have been recommended by the Boundary Commissioners.

Mr. Churchill: Much turns upon this: I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Here is a Report which we have received from the Boundary Commission. Where is the plan in it for dividing these big boroughs, or adding an additional seat, assuming that the Commission had recommended such a course?

Mr. Ede: The plan is not in the Report. The eight big boroughs are mentioned in the 15th paragraph of the Report. It states that of the 44 constituencies with electorate of over 70,00o, eight have elec-


torates exceeding 80,000. Then they enumerate them; those are the eight boroughs which have been divided into two.

Mr. Churchill: Yes, but they enumerated them for the purpose of saying that they did not propose to divide them into two.

Mr. Ede: In spite of that, they recognised that this was a point at which—I am trying to answer the right hon. Gentleman; I think he is more likely to get the information from me than from his right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). The Commissioners submitted to the Government a way in which these boroughs could be divided if the Government or the House decided to divide them into two.

Mr. Churchill: Where is that recommendation of detail as to how they should be divided?

Mr. Ede: It is in the Government's Amendments to the Bill, and was also in the White Paper which was issued last week.

Mr. Churchill: Has there been a secret reference to the Commission, of which the House has not been made aware?

Mr. Ede: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to deal with this matter I shall make a complete disclosure of the way in which these Amendments have been drafted. I think he will find exactly how it has occurred. The Boundary Commissioners divided each of these eight into two. The Government, in the light of the representations made to them during the Second Reading, then considered whether it was possible in any other way to redress the great disparity between the average borough and the average county constituency in England. The Boundary Commissioners themselves had said that the normal constituency should be regarded as having between 50,000 and 70,000 electors. We had to scrap the first Boundary Commission's Report, which was on the basis of one vote, one value——

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Scrap it?

Mr. Ede: As Members know, there have been two reports like this. The first was produced on the 1945 register, which was generally condemned on both sides on

the ground that, while it produced greater mathematical exactitude, it did, in the case of medium-sized boroughs, greatly offend local susceptibilities and local patriotism. I was pressed, even more from the opposite side of the House than from this, to scrap the Report and to draw up new rules with the object of getting a second report in which mathematical considerations were not given as great a weight as the kind of local considerations which had weighed with boroughs which were entitled to one Member and a bit more.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Churchill: It is vital to our discussion to know the essential facts. Did the Boundary Commissioners, at the time they made this second report, trace out the lines of division of these 17 constituencies, or was that done afterwards?

Mr. Ede: I have not said that they traced out the boundaries——

Mr. Churchill: They didn't?

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman might allow me to finish what I was saying. They traced out the boundaries of the eight divided boroughs.

Mr. Churchill: When?

Mr. Ede: At the time the second blue report was submitted. At that time, we received the division of the eight big boroughs into 16 constituencies.

Mr. Churchill: I am sorry to interrupt, but we must know where we are. I think that we are being misled. Why was this scheme for redistribution by the Boundary Commission not made public at the time when this report was made public?

Mr. Ede: Because at that time the Bill had not been drafted, and, as I explained to the House on the Second Reading, we decided to put into the Bill, when we presented it to the House, the Boundary Commissioners' Report. At that time, we had the division of the eight large boroughs into 16 constituencies.

Mr. Churchill: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "had the division"? Did the Commissioners give him the report of how these boroughs should be divided before this report which I have been holding in my hand was laid before Parliament, or was there a request by the Government for a further suggestion on this matter?

Mr. Ede: There was not a further suggestion that there should be a division of those. I want the Committee to keep clearly in mind two stages. The first is the division of the eight big boroughs, plans for that were given to us at the time we received the report which we embodied in the Bill. With regard to the other nine scats which make up the 17, no suggestion at that stage was made to us by the Boundary Commissioners. The Government took this figure which the Boundary Commission themselves had regarded as normal—between 50,000 and 70,000—and applied it to the divided boroughs in the country. It found that there were nine divided boroughs, which, if they were given an additional seat, would still have an average constituency of between 50,000 and 70,000.

Mr. Churchill: Who found this, the Boundary Commission or the Government?

Mr. Ede: The arithmetical powers of the Government were sufficient for that.

Mr. Churchill: Mr. Churchill rose——

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Churchill: We are in Committee. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite think that they are going to knock us about to get their dirty racket through they are very much mistaken. Why was this information withheld? The Boundary Commission had nothing to do with it.

Mr. Ede: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be listened to in perfect courtesy. I do not think that he has ever complained that I have interrupted him. But I am endeavouring to give an explanation to the House which I think is quite simple, and which I am certain is truthful. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman doubts that, it is impossible to argue with people who will not accept the other man's good faith in the matter.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I want to get clear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying as regards the eight boroughs. I understand that as regards the eight boroughs he stated that he received a report from the Boundary Commissioners. May I ask if that report was in writing and if it has ever been published to this House?

Mr. Ede: The report was in writing. It was purely a statistical report dividing

these eight boroughs into two each, as proposed in the Government's Amendments to the Bill.

Mr. Strauss: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the White Paper of last week, which makes no mention of the Boundary Commission at all.

Mr. Ede: As the Lord President of the Council said at the time the original Bill went through in 1944, in these matters Parliament is supreme. It is for Parliament to settle what the constituencies are to be, and it is for the Government to get the best advice it can to tender to the House as to what the constituencies should be when they decide to submit their suggestions to the House. There were nine boroughs in the country which had more than two members, where an additional member would still keep the average size of the constituency within the normal limits. I will enumerate them: Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Manchester, Nottingham and Sheffield.
To take the first one, Birmingham was allotted 12 members, and, with an electorate of 759,690, that gave an average electorate for each constituency of 63,308. An additional member there brought the average electorate for the constituency to 58,438, which was a great deal nearer to the general quota for the whole country than the figure for the 12 seats. In the same way, in each of the other eight boroughs, by adding one member to each borough we secured an average electorate which was still within the normal limits. As a matter of fact, Bradford, one of those in the Boundary Commissioners' Report, had an average electorate which was outside the normal of 71,133. By giving them an additional member, the average electorate becomes 53,350, which is within and not without the normal size of a constituency.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: The best description of the position in Bradford is not "giving them an additional member" but restoring the one taken from them by this report.

Mr. Ede: We did not have any regard to what was the representation of the city before the report was published. We took the number of electors, and we arrived at a number of constituencies which would still keep the average size of the constituency between the normal


limits. As a matter of fact, we could have given Birmingham two other members and still have been within the size of the average constituency. Having decided that those nine cities should receive an additional Member, we asked the Boundary Commissioners if they would divide the nine seats into constituencies of the numbers which we recommend to the Committee. As a result of their recommendations and response to that request, we have put the other nine seats into the Amendment to the First Schedule.

Mr. Churchill: Is it not a fact that when the Boundary Commission presented its report, its functions were discharged, and in the main it has stated its opinion as to the fair distribution of the seats? Is it not a fact, also, that the Government desired to know whether the Boundary Commission would deal further with the matter, and were they not informed that the Commission could not act in a collective capacity any more? Were they not then reduced to obtaining the individual advice and opinion of former members of a Boundary Commission, which in this matter was defunct?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir, it is not right.

Mr. Churchill: I think it is.

Mr. Ede: The Boundary Commission now is a continuing body. As a result of the 1944 Act it is the duty of the Boundary Commissioners within not less than three years and not more than seven from the date when their previous reports have been enacted by this House to present a fresh report to this House, indicating the way in which the constituencies of the country should be revised if any revision is necessary. This Report has not been enacted, and we think the best people to advise us on the way these nine seats should be divided were the people who had drawn up the original Report, and who had experience in dividing the constituencies into cities and counties throughout the country.

Mr. Churchill: But they had neither collective nor statutory capacity except as individuals to advise after the functions defined by the Act of 1944 had been discharged.

Mr. Ede: Even if that were an accurate statement of the position—and I do not admit it to be—it does not invalidate the

value of their recommendations to the House. The Government have reached the decision to recommend to the Committee, for the reasons that I have given, that these nine additional seats should be found, and there can be no one more competent than the Boundary Commissioners to advise us as to the appropriate way in which these seats should be divided. The effect of these proposals is that the average electors in England with these 17 seats will be 56,758 and the average electors in a borough will be 57,833–1,075 above the average instead of 2,737 in the proposals of the original Report. The average electorate of a county will be 55,360 or only 1,398 below the average instead of 3,345 as in the Boundary Commission's Report. The Government feel that this greater approximation to equality between the boroughs and the counties is a thing——

4.15 p.m.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Whereupon, The GENTLEMAN-USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1948.
2. Attempted Rape Act, 1948.
3. Supreme Court of Judicature (Amendment) Act, 1948.
4. Army and Air Force (Women's Service) Act, 1948.
5. Water Act, 1948.
6. Cinematograph Films Act, 1948.
7. Police Pensions Act, 1948.
8. Royal Marines Act, 1948.
9. Local Government Act, 1948.
10. Sutton's Hospital in Charter-house Charity Scheme Confirmation Act, 1948.
11. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1948.

And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Clergy Pensions Measure, 1948.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

Amendment proposed: In page 4, line 1, at end, insert:
(a) in rule I, in the table showing the number of constituencies, for the words "591," there shall be substituted the words "613.

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Perhaps I might be allowed to go back to the position of the eight boroughs which have been divided into two, before I conclude the observations which I was making before the House went to another place. Hon. Members who have a copy of the Report of the Boundary Commission will know that it was signed on 24th October, 1947. On 9th October, 15 days before the Report was signed, I received a letter from Sir Roland Burrows, the Deputy Chairman of the Commission, in these terms:
As you will see from the Report of the Boundary Commission for England, it was decided, for the reasons set out in it, that the eight boroughs with electorates between 80,000 and 88,000 should not be divided. The Report is not yet signed, and it may be a few days before it is ready to send, although it is complete. It was thought, however, that it might be as well if we did prepare a scheme for division so that if, in any event, Parliament were to decide on revision, matters would not be delayed.
This scheme is not recommended by us and is, therefore, not made a part of the Schedule. I have been authorised to send it unofficially to you for the above reason. It is what we should have put in the Schedule had we decided to divide these constituencies.
There can be no question as to the position of the Commissioners at that time. They were not functus officio at that date, because they did not sign their Report until 15 days after the letter was written to me. The letter shows that they had some misgivings as to whether it was right to include constituencies of such a size in their Report. They were, of course, hampered by the fact that they had this upper limit of 591 constituencies for Great Britain imposed upon them and their freedom of movement within the figure is limited by the minimum numbers assigned to Scotland and Wales; rob out of the 591 had to be given to Scotland

and Wales for certain. That left the Boundary Commission for England with only 485 seats at their disposal, if they stuck to the figure of 591. I hope that what I have said disposes of any suggestion with regard to the eight big boroughs.

Mr. Churchill: No, it does not dispose of it.

Mr. Ede: All I can say is that it is an indication that the Boundary Commission themselves had doubts as to whether it was appropriate to include eight constituencies of this size inside the Report. With regard to the nine others, we asked the Boundary Commissioners, as the people who were most likely to be able to give us a reasonable and impartial division of these cities, to suggest lines of division to us——

Mr. Churchill: I must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. Did the right hon. Gentleman ask them as the Boundary Commission presenting its Report under Statute of Parliament or as individuals who had formerly been members of that body?

Mr. Ede: I approached them in the proper way through their Chairman——

Mr. Churchill: That is no answer.

Mr. Ede: I did not attempt to define at the time whether they were acting in their statutory capacity or not. I presented the problem to them that the Government desired to have these nine cities divided in such a way as to give each of them an additional Member, and they submitted suggestions to me which were embodied in the White Paper. I am not concerned whether they were acting in their statutory capacity or not——

Mr. Churchill: We are, though.

Mr. Ede: I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) will concede this to me. It would be perfectly competent to me or to any other hon. Member of the House to submit our own Amendments to the Schedule. Some hon. Gentlemen have done so. They have suggested that certain boroughs and cities shall be divided in certain ways. It seemed to me that the fairest thing to do for all concerned was, once the Government had reached the decision that they would recommend the House to create


these additional nine seats, to go to the people who had been responsible for the original division. I do not believe that their actions or opinions vary when they are acting in a statutory capacity or when they are acting as advisers to the Government outside their statutory capacity, and it did not occur to me—I say it quite frankly—to make any differentiation in the approach I made.
The effect of the Amendments the Government propose is that to some extent they redress the under-representation of England as compared with Scotland and Wales. They bring nearer the average size of a constituency, whether it be a borough or a county, and at the same time we believe that by giving a distinction of 2,473 votes between the average size of a county and a borough division in England we give adequate recognition to the additional difficulties that are created in scattered rural constituencies. The Government recommend this Amendment to the Committee for the reasons that I have given, and the necessary Amendments to give effect to it have been placed by the Government on the Order Paper to the First Schedule of the Bill.

Mr. Churchill: I have long had respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I must frankly and sincerely say that it was with sorrow and surprise that I witnessed him perform this disreputable job this afternoon. I will examine it in detail and in its proper place in this story. The Speaker's Conference recommended in Resolutions 6 and 7 that there should be, as the right hon. Gentleman said:
… not substantially more or less than 591 Members of the House of Commons for Great Britain.
This with the addition of the 12 university and 12 Ulster seats, would have made up the 615. The Home Secretary now proposes to alter the total figure of 591 into 613, an increase of 22 seats. This is a complete departure from the recommend dations of the Speaker's Conference. It goes far beyond any variation which might be covered by the words:
… not substantially more or less than 591.
For an increase of this magnitude in the total representation of Great Britain, while Scotland and Wales remain unaltered, statutory authority should have been

sought, and an all-party agreement should have been secured for such a large departure from the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference.
We have already set on record our opinion that the departures from the Speaker's Conference agreement, involving as they did the abolition of university representation and the representation of the City of London, constitute breaches of faith and agreement between the two major parties in the State, and also that they involve a breach of faith between the leading Socialist Ministers—none more than the Lord President himself—who were in the National Coalition Government and their Conservative colleagues of that time, and a breach of faith, as I assert, between the Prime Minister of today and myself as head of that Government in the former Parliament.
The agreement of 1944 must obviously stand as a whole. The great concessions which we made while possessing a large majority in the House of Commons, in the matter of the municipal franchise, were accepted, and other parts of the agreed policy were departed from because they did not suit Socialist Party interests. This wrong deed was done for party political motives of a character alike petty and base. It has probably destroyed the validity and usefulness of all Speakers' Conferences on these matters for the future, and by so doing it has altered, if not shattered, that decent, healthy basis about electoral reform which has grown up in the last 50 years or more and has formed the foundation of our modern House of Commons system.
The Government have replied to the effect that one Parliament cannot bind another; that once they had gained a majority at the election of 1945, they were perfectly free to take all the advantages of the agreement and leave out any parts that were not suitable to their Party interests. If the Conservatives chose to make concessions for the sake of national agreement in 1944, when they had a majority of 150 over all parties, there is no reason why the Socialist Party should be so foolish as to keep the agreement when they, in their turn, have for the time being a large, or even larger, majority. The party opposite, the party which make such great claims to the guidance of the future of the world, have laid down the principle that all agreements they may make and use are sub-


ject to the principle that they can take what they think is good for them and leave out any parts which they think are to their detriment, although the whole transaction was obviously integral in its character. I am sure that this outlook and the conduct of this Bill has definitely lowered the whole standard of our political life; it has certainly greatly affected in these matters the relations between the two parties.
Discussions are proceeding now for the reform of the Second Chamber, but we cannot any longer feel assurance that, even if agreement were reached, the Government would keep the agreement. We cannot feel sure that they would not use any admissions or concessions which their opponents had made as a jumping off point for further argument, without on their part fulfilling honourably the counter-concessions which were part of a general settlement. I deeply regret that the Prime Minister, the Lord President, and other important Ministers opposite should have stooped so low at a time when it seems especially important that the reputation of a British Government in these matters should stand high in the world.
This new proposal of the Home Secretary not only flouts and destroys the agreement of the Speaker's Conference in the last Parliament; it is a flagrant breach of the usage which the Government have established in this Parliament after they became possessed of their great majority. It is an argument which is superimposed on all the complaints we made about the departure from the Speaker's Conference. The excuse that one Parliament cannot bind another, and the promulgation in electoral matters of the principle of "catch as catch can" as between one House of Commons and another, does not cover in any way the usage which His Majesty's Government have themselves practised and enjoined in this present Parliament.
4.45. p.m.
As a result of the Speaker's Conference and other statutory Measures passed by the late Parliament, the Boundary Commission was set up to make a fresh and fair redistribution of seats with the object of approaching, subject to the many inherent difficulties of the subject, nearer to an equal representation of the people to one vote, one value, and to redressing

the grave inequalities which grow up from time to time in consequence of the movement of the population, especially during great wars. This Boundary Commission was set up under the National Coalition, and it was confirmed in its work by the present Government. After it had laboured for several months, the Commission published its proposals in, perhaps it may be said, a tentative or preliminary form, and then engaged upon many local hearings and inquiries, where the evidence of all parties could be taken. At this stage the Commission represented to the Government that the rules under which they were working were unduly rigid, and asked whether some further latitude might not be given.
The Government did not, I think, much like these proposals when they saw them, and thought they might be perhaps somewhat unfavourable to them. I myself viewed with great suspicion their wish to alter the rules on which the Boundary Commission were to work. However, on examination this suspicion was removed. It cannot be denied that some of the limits imposed upon the Commission led to inconvenience and hardship when it came to applying them to the varied conditions of particular constituencies.
Therefore, in December, 1946, the Home Secretary came to the House and presented us with proposals to alter the rules for redistribution and to allow wider limits of toleration. The right hon. Gentleman resented any suggestion that gerrymandering in any form was intended; all was to be fair and impartial, and the Boundary Commission were to be given more latitude in discharging their task. Discussions were then entered into between the two parties, through what are called "the usual channels." In this case it was much more than discussion between Whips, for my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) met the Home Secretary, with whom he was well acquainted, in long discussions of an amicable character. The whole field was surveyed, and we agreed to the new proposals of the Government, and allowed them to pass through unopposed.
Thus the principle was maintained and reaffirmed in the new Parliament of joint agreement on these matters. It is not a question of the old Parliament but of this Parliament, and it is the direct and immediate responsibility of hon. Members


opposite. Let me put the following question to the Home Secretary or to the Lord President: if it was right and proper to come to us in December, 1946, and obtain our agreement to altering the rules for the Boundary Commission, why was it not right in this same Parliament to come to us on this occasion when a far more serious departure is intended? On what grounds of principle is there differentiation between what was decent conduct in December, 1946, and what the Government have tried to pass off as decent conduct in March, 1948? I hope that question will be answered. Why did the Government come to us then, and why have they slipped this through now without any attempt to carry on with joint discussions which, even in this Parliament, they have considered it appropriate to maintain? I am afraid the explanation is pitifully simple, hut I will come to that later.
In these discussions of 1946 no suggestion was made that it was necessary to increase the figure of 591. It was understood clearly, however, between the parties—and there was an understanding between the parties, then—that no complaint would be made if the Commissioners interpreted the words of the 1944 Act in such a way as to increase the number of seats for England by five or six. The Boundary Commission in fact made use of the discretion given to them. That was the way they interpreted the phrase about "substantially around this figure" and made it 489 for England, as against 484 in their original proposals.
We claim first that the Speaker's Conference agreements have been broken; secondly, we say that the argument about a new Parliament has no validity in respect of the transactions about the Boundary Commission, for those transactions were renewed by the present Government, and this understanding was carried on by the present Government with all the great majority they have at their disposal.
In due course the Boundary Commission made their Report. This is the Report which the Statute upon which they were acting says it was their duty to lay before Parliament. It says that it
shall be laid by the Secretary of State before Parliament as soon as may be after its submission to him.

It was the duty of the Boundary Commissioners to lay their Report before Parliament through the Secretary of State. We hear a lot now about private reports and private negotiations, first with the Boundary Commission as a whole, and, after they had ceased to function in this matter, with individual members. But here was a statutory obligation that the Report of the Boundary Commissioners should be laid in its integrity, and as a whole before Parliament by the Secretary of State. We are not told anything about all kinds of reservations, private negotiations, and hypothetical schemes. They were not mentioned at the time. More especially should they have been mentioned in a matter where we were by way of proceeding by agreement.
When this Bill was introduced a month ago, the new proposals of the Boundary Commissioners were recommended to us by the Home Secretary. He proposed those new proposals as set forth by the Boundary Commission in their Report of 27th October. These were the proposals the Government introduced to the House. We were confronted with the abolition of the university representation and the abolition of the City of London representation, with the object of excluding from the future House of Commons a number of independent or opposition Members—with that object and effect if it were to continue after a General Election. But no mention or even whisper was heard of any proposal to violate the Report of the Boundary Commission. All this is an afterthought, all this fine story about the hypothetical secret reports, about "how you would do it if you had to"—all that has been produced today. I am not saying it is not true, but it is irrelevant to the matters which have been brought before Parliament, and has nothing to do with the matter, that the Government go behind the scenes and have private negotiations with those discharging an official duty.
We have had laid before us a Report, and on that Report we are entitled to base ourselves. Far from suggesting that the Report of the Boundary Commissioners was not correct, or a good foundation for the Bill, the attitude of Ministers—particularly of the Home Secretary—was such as to convey the impression that they were much opposed to any alterations, and that they would resist the natural pressure of individual Members


in all parts of the House who were unfavourably affected by the inevitable workings of any redistribution scheme.

Mr. Follick: Mr. Follick (Loughborough) rose——

Mr. Churchill: No, I cannot give way. As the Debates proceeded, the Government came to the conclusion that the new Report of the Boundary Commission, which was drawn up in accordance with recognised principles, and in accordance with the new rules which the Government had proposed, and we had accepted, was even less favourable to them than the original Report. That they kept in the background. All they told us was that this was the right scheme and this is what they proposed to Parliament. The Home Secretary even paraded the fact that this Report was less favourable to Socialist Party's interests than the previous one. He even paraded it to the House as proof of the high and detached spirit in which the Government were conducting the Redistribution Bill. If the House will very kindly and graciously allow me, I will read what he said on 16th February:
I had no doubt, as I said at the time, that any revision of the figures of the constituencies on the lines desired by the House would not be beneficial to the party on this side of the House; in fact, this party would stand to gain by the exact mathematical division that was provided by the first Report."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 841.]
That is what he said. Such virtue is greatly to be admired in a man who says, "Never mind, I will do my duty and act fairly, even in my own despite." It is greatly to be admired, if it stands on anything but falsehood and humbug.

Mr. Stubbs: Withdraw.

Mr. Churchill: I have no doubt it was the sincere wish of the Home Secretary to carry the Measure as he presented it to the House, but the party pressure proved too strong. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer raised it in a rasping manner and it was considered that a change must be made. The sops which had been thrown to party feeling in destroying university representation, and City of London representation were not sufficient. It was a case of "our fellows wanted more," and more they had to have. There is the explanation of all these Amendments and Schedules, and the talk

and explanations which are given—"our fellows wanted more."
So we come to this Amendment, which proposes to add another 17 seats to the representation of England which, added to the five the Commissioners in their exercise of their latitude had added, makes 22 in all, The Boundary Commission had done their work. When they presented this Report they had done the work prescribed for them by Statute. They had finished as a Boundary Commission. There may be minor activities afterwards which were assigned to them, but it was by the Act of 1944 their duty to present their Report. After it was over —I am perfectly certain I am correct on this matter—after it had been presented, the Commission were functus officio.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): indicated dissent.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head—he would shake his head at almost anything. He has now started shaking his head at Bolshevism, of which he was such an admirer only two years ago. The Commission had done their work. They had given their verdict fairly and impartially upon the basis prescribed by the Government, and in accordance with the agreement between the parties at the Speaker's Conference.
5.0 p.m.
Now that the Commission has discharged its primary task and placed its conclusions before us, and the Government proceed to make further changes in the Measure which they themselves take the responsibility for bringing before the House in accordance with the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, the last pretence of impartiality and fair dealing between parties is swept away. We are to have a Redistribution Bill—and I am glad that my words will go out, as they will do, far and wide throughout this country—which is deliberately based on no principle except that of party advantage, and which has no sanction behind it except the party majority, obtained on false pretences and with an electorate utterly disproportionate to the results produced in the House of Commons.
I come to these proposals, which are in two parts, both of which have been carefully devised to favour the Government


party, whose majority, as I have said already, goes far beyond what the voting strength exhibited, even under the artificial conditions which the General Election produced. Sixteen new seats are to be created by the division of the eight big boroughs. I am dealing first with the eight big boroughs. It is no mere coincidence that these eight big boroughs are, with one exception, now held by the Socialists. Consequently they are doubling the representation of these constituencies in which they themselves have almost a monopoly. We have heard the Boundary Commission on this matter, and the Home Secretary this afternoon said a little disingenuously —he had to extend it in more detail afterwards—that the Boundary Commission had drawn attention to the case of these big boroughs. Why did the Commission do so? [An HON. MEMBER: "They were too big."] On the contrary. The hon. Member cannot have read the Report. It was in order to express their reasoned opinion—this Commission that hon. Members applaud—why no change in them should take place. I will read paragraph 15 of this Report:
Of the 44 constituencies with electorates of over 70,000, eight have electorates exceeding 80,000. These are the Parliamentary Boroughs of Battersea, Blackburn, East Ham, Gateshead, Hammersmith, Norwich, Paddington and Reading. We have considered very carefully whether we should increase the allocation of seats to each of these boroughs to two, thus increasing the total allocation of seats by eight. We are not unmindful of the disadvantages of such large electorates to the Members called upon to represent them in Parliament, and we are aware that the communities contained in such electorates may claim to be underrepresented. We are, however, of opinion that the creation of eight additional seats in these cases would do little to solve the general problem of equal representation, since it would merely serve to reduce slightly the gap between the lowest and highest electorates, while it might well give rise to claims for similar treatment from boroughs with electorates slightly below 80,000. Moreover if those boroughs were divided the resulting electorates would compare favourably with the majority of the rural constituencies having electorates of under 50,000 including those created in virtue of their sparse population and difficulty of access
It is this last reason which is the most important; the main reason is the last, so that what is nakedly proposed, I beg the Committee to note, by the Home Secretary in his Amendment, contrary to the advice of the Boundary Commission, is to double the representation of these

big boroughs, all of which but one is held by Socialists, and to create 16 urban seats which will be among the smallest in the whole country. For party advantage, and for party advantage alone, they are to make seats which will be in the neighbourhood of 40,000, smaller than in many cases is thought right in regard to sparsely populated agricultural and mountainous areas.

Mr. John Paton: Mr. John Paton (Norwich) rose——

Mr. Churchill: I say that this proposal made by the Home Secretary——

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: On a point of Order, I think it is proper to ask a question in view of the——

The Deputy-Chairman: What is the hon. Member's point of Order?

Mr. Thomas: The point is that the right hon. Gentleman is apparently not aware——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is giving information. He is not raising a point of Order.

Mr. Thomas: The point of Order——

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member will come straight to his point of Order, I will deal with it, but he was commencing a speech and not submitting a point of Order.

Mr. Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware——

The Deputy-Chairman: A point of Order must be addressed to the Chair.

Mr. Thomas: Battersea or Reading——

Mr. Churchill: A particular Parliamentary device which I have often seen used, but to which I have rarely myself resorted, is to rise on a point of Order and to use that opportunity as an excuse for intervening in the Debate. I say that what we have before us is a proposal to manufacture a certain number of the smallest class of constituencies with the fewest numbers of electors which it is believed, or at least hoped, that the Socialist Party will be able to hold at the next election.
The second new proposal is to add a seat to each of the nine big cities. These two proposals together involve tampering with the boundaries of 65 constitu-


encies. How is this process to be carried out? I am at a loss to know. We know that the Boundary Commission had ceased to function in these matters after 27th October. We know, by the revelations made today, that a private or secret request was made to them to deal with a hypothetical case, and that they gave advice on that. Now we know that when they had ceased to function, the Home Secretary nevertheless went to individual members of the Commission, through the chairman, but when they were no longer acting within their statutory duties, and asked them to say so and so. He told us how they think the constituencies should be divided.
I cannot think that the process by which these constituencies have been divided can claim any impartial or disinterested authority. The Home Secretary has just told us that Parliament can do what it likes in these matters. He has just put forward that claim, that Parliament is supreme and can make what arangements it chooses. I have no doubt that he can draw these constituencies with his finger—these 65 that have to be altered to give the Government these 17 more seats. He can draw them and shape them as he chooses, after taking whatever advice he likes, whether from members of the Boundary Commission or any other well-informed quarter on these subjects.
I say that what we are confronted with is that this partisan Minister is to decide with his finger what the boundaries of these 65 constituencies are to be. And though he may choose to utilise the services of people who were members of the Boundary Commission, and any other advantage he may get from his party organisation, he remains directly responsible for the shaping of these 65 constituencies. Anyone can see from what has already happened the spirit in which this process will be conducted and the object at which it aims. It is one which we are familiar with on the Continent of Europe, in countries where the Communists have established their totalitarian rule, where the Minister of the Interior shapes the constituencies in accordance with his own party interests, after taking such advice as he thinks fit.
If ever there was a time to avoid the adoption of such continental methods over here, it is surely now, when the

arbitrary regulation of voting and the shaping of constituencies, in order to secure the permanent domination of the party in power, is one of the principal objections we are raising to the totalitarian system in all its forms. It is lamentable indeed that our "Minister of the Interior," as his behaviour entitles him to be called, should put himself in such a position and strike such an attitude before the country and the world.
No one has exposed, in more scathing terms the procedure which the Government now adopt to delimit constituencies and to deal with the whole question of Parliamentary representation on the arbitrary authority of the Executive, or of a particular Minister of the day, more effectively than the Lord President of the Council himself. This is what he said on 1st February, 1944, on the Motion to set up the Speaker's Conference—nineteen hundred and forty-four; better days for him—better days for us.
I am sure it would be the wish of all the parties in the House that when redistribution takes place it should be made fairly and equitably. As Home Secretary it is…my duty to be fair and impartial about the matter, but it is a tricky business. You can make a decision, or give directions that may involve serious political repercussions which, maybe, you have not thought of, or on the other hand, they may involve such repercussions politically on one political party or another that the Home Secretary may be suspected. In any case, he is bound to be in an unhappy position,"—
prophetic terms—
and if it can be avoided I do not think it is desirable that the principles of redistribution should be settled either directly by the Government or individually by any Minister of the Crown. Therefore, while I am not sure that it will come off, I hope myself that the Speaker's Conference… will itself agree on the principles of redistribution, and the directions to the Boundary Commissioners, and if they do I shall be very grateful. It will save me a nasty job, an invidious job, and I think it is the way it should be done."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February. 1944; Vol. 396, C. 1160.]
The nasty job, the invidious job, has just been moved two feet along on the Government Front Bench. There is the true description—in the words of the right hon. Gentleman who leads the House, in his better moments—there is the true description of the unfortunate Home Secretary, whose virtues have been paraded before us as a kind of camouflage for one of the shabbiest political manœuvres which we have on record.
I said a few moments ago that the explanation of this Amendment was pitifully simple. The Government and its leading Ministers wanted to do what was right and fair, and in accordance with their previous pledges and repeated declarations. They wished sincerely to behave in an honourable and straightforward manner before the country, but they could not bear to lose any electoral advantage—even a comparatively small one—through the application of a fair and impartial system for the representation of the people. They saw the light. They avowed their duty. But the temptation of party advantage was too strong for Socialist nature and honour. They have embarked upon a transaction which, I am sure, every honest and decent man opposite will view with regret, and about which they should all feel lasting shame.

5.15 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I think it is desirable that I should at once reply to the wild and extravagant speech, which, in characteristic vein, has just been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). He has charged my right hon. Friend with all sorts of moral offences——

Mr. Churchill: And you.

Mr. Morrison: —and me. Which of us he enjoys bringing charges against the most, I am not sure, but he has been fairly impartial between the two of us. He is accusing us of a trick, a shady, electoral, Parliamentary trick, for the partisan advantage of the hon. Members sitting on this side of the House. What he has not done is to devote any material part of his argument to the merits of the case which is before the House.
I am bound to say, in view of the frequency with which we on this side of the House give way when the right hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt—and he very frequently does—I should have thought that when my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) who represents one of the 8o,000 type of constituencies got up, the right hon. Gentleman might have let him get a word in. The right hon. Gentleman has not argued against the merits of the proposal of my right hon. Friend in any way. He has

merely hurled abuse at the Government, and accused us of having the most sordid and abominable of motives—just because he wanted half an hour out; just because he wanted a fling, which his supporters have of course enjoyed; and, to tell the truth, we have enjoyed it ourselves. Merely because he wanted a fling, he has scattered all these wild and extreme and irresponsible accusations about, and hardly for one moment has he dealt with the proposals now before the Committee.
Of course, a long part of his speech was devoted once more to the Speaker's Conference and to the attempt to assume—not to argue—that the decisions or recommendations of the Speaker's Conference of the last Parliament were binding upon this Parliament. I have answered that argument, and abolished it so often, that it would be a waste of time to proceed to do so again, and I do not propose to do so.
It is perfectly clear that the right hon. Gentleman totally misunderstood the whole purpose and the basis of the Boundary Commission. He argued in his speech that they came into existence to conduct this redistribution, and that, when they had presented their main Report, their job was finished. That was the basis upon which he started, until my right hon. Friend put him right. The very first words in Section 1 of the Act of 1944 —an Act which I had the honour of bringing in on behalf of the Government over which the right hon. Gentleman presided—state:
For the purpose of the continuous review of the distribution of seats
This indeed was the great change that was made by the Act of 1944—not that there was one single ad hoc redistribution—and the Commission then went out of existence and the thing was forgotten until some Government or another had time to bring in another Bill, but that there should be a permanent Boundary Commission which could keep the matter, in a ministerial phrase, "constantly under review."

Mr. Churchill: Why did you not refer this to them?

Mr. Morrison: I will come to that in a moment. I agree that it cannot be claimed either by my right hon. Friend or myself that the reference of these particular constituencies for the advice of the Boundary Commission was wholly and


officially under the procedure prescribed by the Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It was not. My right hon. Friend has not claimed that it was. I will give reasons why it was done in a moment. But section 4 (3) of the Act contemplates this:
Any Boundary Commission may also from time to time submit to the Secretary of State reports with respect to the area comprised in any particular constituency or constituencies in the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned, showing the constituencies into which they recommend that that area should be divided, and the number of Members which they recommend should be returned by each of them, in order to give effect to the rules set out in the said Third Schedule.

Mr. Peake: I really must interrupt the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has very courteously given way. I only wanted to draw his attention to the fact that he was quoting from a subsection which deals not with the initial Report of the Commissioners, but with subsequent Reports which may be made at a period three years after the initial Report has been issued.

Mr. Morrison: I said at the beginning that I was not claiming that my right hon. Friend had resorted to this method of dealing with the matter entirely in accordance with the terms of the Act. When I said that, there were ironical cheers from hon. Members opposite. I said it deliberately, and I mean it. I am sure that my right hon. Friend fully agrees. I suggest that it is clearly envisaged in that Subsection that, apart from the general redistribution which must take place periodically, the Commission can from time to time, either on its own initiative—or I suppose the Secretary of State could suggest they should do so—or on anybody else's initiative, examine particular problems thrown up in connection with particular constituencies.
Therefore, we get to the point that my right hon. Friend, having decided, with the authority of the Government, that certain Amendments should be put forward to the Bill, had then to consider what was the best way to settle the boundaries of the proposed constituencies. Of course, he could have settled the boundaries himself of his own volition with Departmental advice, or any other advice; but I do not know that that would

have improved the situation. I am perfectly sure that if my right hon. Friend had done it on his own, the right hon. Member for Woodford would have charged him with gerrymandering and would have asked, "Why did he not use the Boundary Commission?"—or would the right hon. Gentleman have liked him to go to political headquarters to let them settle it? I think that would have been very wrong. My right hon. Friend took the best and most impartial course open to him and said, "I will not make these actual divisions of the constituencies myself. I will ask the Boundary Commission's advice about it."

Mr. Churchill: The Boundary Commission did not give advice on this occasion in their collective and statutory capacity. They gave it as individual members after an attempt had been made, after inquiries had been made, to find out whether they could give advice in their collective capacity.

Mr. Morrison: First of all, the Boundary Commission exists. It is not dead, it goes on; it is continuous; it is in being. Second, it gave collective advice. The chairman and the Commission were approached, and the Commission gave advice to my right hon. Friend. As I have said to the Committee, quite frankly, I do not claim that the whole of it was pukka procedure in accordance with every word of the Act. That is perfectly clear and admitted, but I say that, my right hon. Friend having made up his mind that there were to be additional constituencies, he had to chose—which it was quite competent for him to do, and I will come to that later—whether he should make the divisions of the boundaries of the new constituencies himself, or whether he should enlist the aid of this impartial body, the Boundary Commissioners. I am sure that the Committee as a whole, and indeed the right hon. Member for Woodford on reflection, will see that obviously the best thing for him to do was to go to this experienced body of impartial persons and ask them to draw the boundaries. Indeed, I think that he would have been open to criticism if he had not done that.
It is urged that in any case he has no right to depart from the Report of the Boundary Commission. The right hon. Gentleman said these constituencies with 80,000-odd electors would, by being


divided, have just over 40,000 electors, and that was so small. It is true that their electorate would be over 40,000, probably under 45,000, and certainly under 50,000; but there are other constituencies which, on the principle of maintaining municipal identity of a local government area have also survived under the Report of the Boundary Commission although they were small constituencies. Some of them are actually smaller constituencies than will be found, in some cases, in a division of the constituencies with over 80,000 electors. It is curious that the right hon. Gentleman should be so worried about the 40,000 in these cases, and at the same time should have been fighting for university representation where the electorate is infinitely smaller and where only about half of them voted on the last occasion. It is still more extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should work himself up into a state because of these 40,000 people, and at the same time denounce us for terminating the City of London where only 4,600 electors will survive.
5.30 p.m.
Who is the partisan? Where sits the partisan on the Bench opposite or on this Bench? The truth is that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was spoiled throughout by the most terrible partisan observations in which he was concerned not with what was right, but merely with what he suspected might conceivably be a party disadvantage to him.

Mr. Churchill: This was at a Speaker's Conference and the right hon. Gentleman agreed.

Mr. Morrison: I utterly deny that the right hon. Gentleman has any right whatever to stand on the Speaker's Conference, but we have settled that; anyway, we have had the argument. May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should never be sure about things being a party advantage or not? You never can tell. Let the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the way in which, with great confidence and in a great hurry, he precipitated the last General Election in the belief that he would win, and he did not. Let him reflect upon this, too.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. Gentleman h4s no right to say that I precipitated the last General Election. While the

war with Japan was still going on, he and his colleagues insisted on leaving the Government. It is quite true that they offered to stay on for three months, in order to bring off that coup at the municipal elections as a prelude to the General Election.

Mr. Morrison: Such a thought never crossed our minds. We had a view about it, and, ultimately, we were—near enough—ejected by the right hon. Gentleman from that Government, and he precipitated trouble at that point. It is assumed that all the things in the Speaker's Conference — all the things that happened in it—were to the advantage of the Labour Party. Under that Bill—this same Act of 1944I provided in a Schedule for 25 new constituencies in Greater London, the Home Counties and elsewhere, and, on the whole, looking at them, they had every appearance of being very useful concessions to the political prospects of the Conservative Party. Indeed, I thought at the time that it might be so but I also thought that we should make the best of it, and we did. There was the Moseley Division of Birmingham, where additional representation was secured, and there were Blackpool, Ilford, Wycombe, Altrincham, Epping, Romford, South-East Essex, St. Albans, Chislehurst, Dartford, Harrow, Hendon, Twickenham, Uxbridge, Epsom, Mitcham, Horsham and Worthing, Nuneaton and Tamworth.
Taking them in the main, everybody on both sides at that time assumed that I was a bit of a simpleton to agree to that. However, we chanced it, we thought it right, and people on both sides thought that the result would probably be a substantial gain to the Conservative Party. But we did it, and, as it turned out, we had been too modest and we won many of these constituencies and did very well out of it. It need not be assumed in connection with the settlement of the 1944 period that all the "gives" were on the one side and all the "takes" on the other. That was not so.
With further regard to this procedure in which my right hon. Friend is now engaging, the right hon. Gentleman assumes that the Report of the Boundary Commission is sacred and ought not to be interfered with, and he suggests that if we depart from it, we are engaging in gerrymandering. He has said a lot about


the change in the rules which my right hon. Friend brought in. There were changes, and changes which were desirable—fundamental changes in the rules. The Opposition did not oppose my right hon. Friend's Bill at that time. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was agreed to and accepted by the Opposition, but I have a clear memory, when the announcement was made that the Bill would be introduced, that he described the Home Secretary as engaging in gerrymandering, for which the right hon. Gentleman had no more evidence then than he has today. Today, he says that they accepted and supported the Bill, but it was only after he got this abuse off his chest at my right hon. Friend that he followed with his acquiescence.
I think there is a lot to be said for the right hon. Gentleman having a good go, because he feels better after it, and, sometimes, the next day, he is almost beneficent. But it is not the case that the Government was ever bound by the Boundary Commission. I think it is quite likely that my right hon. Friend said to himself that he would wish to agree with the Commission, and that he did not wish, if he could help it, to depart from the Boundary Commission; it is only because of what he believed to be the merits of the case in this instance that he proposed to make a departure from the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. There is nothing wicked about making such a departure, so long as it is fairly done. This is what the Opposition are denying.
The whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman rested upon the alleged fact that, because my right hon. Friend is departing from the Boundary Commission, he must be engaging in political trickery, gerrymandering and whatnot. But what did I say to the House of Commons when I was a Minister in the right hon. Gentleman's Government and when I spoke with all the authority of the right hon. Gentleman's Government? This extract which I shall now read alone completely demolishes the right hon. Gentleman's argument that my right hon. Friend has no right to modify the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. On 10th October, 1944, I was dealing with the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill, which is now the Act of 1944. At that time, I had to meet possible

criticisms in the House, to the effect that the Government were handing over die whole business to the Boundary Commission, without leaving Parliament any rights at all in the matter. Therefore, in order to assure the House that Parliament retained all its rights, which I welcomed as a good democrat, I said this to the House, on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman's Government:
Therefore, Parliament will settle the principle, Parliament will deal with the recommendations of the Boundary Commissioners as modified or not and submitted by the Government of the day, and at no stage will there be any situation which is not entirely under Parliamentary control. I am sure the House will attach importance to that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th October, 1944; Vol. 403, c 1614.]
First of all, I asserted the right of the Government of the day to ask Parliament to modify the proposal of the Boundary Commission, and, of course, I asserted the right of hon. Members of this House to propose Amendments to the Bill implementing the Commissioners' Report. Indeed, it would be monstrous if hon. Members had not got that right to put forward such Amendments as they might think fit.
That, I think, really disposes of the case, and I think it will be seen that the right hon. Gentleman has not got any case, and that all these accusations are utterly unfounded. The real case for the Amendment, in principle, is this. These 80,000 boroughs are exceptionally difficult to handle. I have myself, at the moment, a constituency, which I am very proud to represent, of nearly 100,000, and it really does take time to keep a reasonable personal contact with so many constituents. It is necessary to draw the arbitrary line, anyway, and, if we take a city like Norwich, with 80,000 electors and a much bigger population, it is exceedingly difficult for my hon. Friend to represent that division and cover the whole ground and get that contact with his constituents that he ought to have. Take the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor). Under the Bill, the hon. and gallant Gentleman, or somebody else, was going to represent 80,000 electors for the whole Borough of Paddington, and I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not like the prospect, and I am sure that he welcomes the proposed division of Paddington, which, I think is only fair and reasonable.

Mr. John Paton: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but may I ask him this question? Is it not the case that, in every one of these cities affected by the proposed changes, all parties in the constituencies were united in demanding the restoration of additional representation?

Mr. Morrison: To the best of my knowledge and belief, I think that is true——

Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is not the case in Bristol.

Mr. Morrison: —and I understood, generally speaking—I do not put it any higher than that—that my right hon. Friend received representations from many political quarters and from the local authorities concerned.

Vice - Admiral Taylor: As the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned Paddington, and South Paddington in particular, I would like to say that, in view of the immense number of voters which would be involved if North and South were combined, I was opposed at the very outset to that amalgamation, and sent in a protest about it, as did also the hon. and gallant Member for North Paddington (Captain Field) and my association. As a matter of fact, the numbers are now over 93,500, and by the time the election comes along they will, possibly, be nearer 100,000. Because of that I was opposed to the amalgamation.

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has very frankly and very convincingly [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—he is quite in earnest about it—stated the case in respect of the Borough of Paddington. As a matter of fact, there was a conference with the local authorities representing what we may call these "800,000 boroughs" at Paddington, and the town clerk communicated with me officially on behalf of the lot of them, asking that the division should be made. Therefore, I do not conceive it as a party question. With regard to the other constituencies, I gather from the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) that he would wish Leeds not to have this additional Member.

Mr. Peake: At no time has there been any demand from any party that Leeds should have an additional Member.

Mr. Morrison: Am I to take it that the right hon. Gentleman thinks Leeds ought not to have an additional Member?

Mr. Peake: I do.

Mr. Morrison: He does; that is very frank too. Let Leeds know about it. We thought——

Mr. Churchill: Is that party politics?

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman is getting shocked about party politics. Wonders never cease. We thought that, in the case of these other boroughs, the recommendation was, perhaps, a little bit harsh. My right hon. Friend conducted a survey, and came to the conclusion that he could take this series of boroughs and treat them in this way, fairly and on a reasonable basis of equity. That is what he has done, and, in the same way, he got the advice of the Boundary Commission as to the best way to do it. That is all there is to it.
What the Committee has to do is to decide whether these proposals are fair and equitable, all things considered. We think they are, and we recommend them to the Committee. As far as we are concerned, my right hon. Friend submits the proposals to the House on their merits. It is for the Committee to decide. As to the wild, partisan, unfair and irresponsible charges of the right hon. Gentleman, we return them to him, we throw them back at him, and we say that they, ix themselves, reveal the naughty things going on in his own mind.

5.45 P.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council took the unusual course of making a second Front Bench speech in support of his Amendment before he had called upon the body of his supporters to assist him. I can quite understand why he should have done that. He was manifestly dissatisfied with the performance of his right hon. Friend, and obviously considered that none of the hon. Gentlemen behind him was competent to deal with the somewhat unplausible case. I agree with him in both those matters. The only point at which I should diverge from him is that I do not consider that, by his own performance, he has added much to the case for the Amendment.
His principal complaint was that my right hon. Friend had declined to deal at


any length with the merits of the case. What a peculiar criticism, coming from the right hon. Gentleman. I suppose this flood of vulgar buffoonery to which this House has time and time again been compelled to listen, this dreary drizzle of personalities of which he is such a master, these personal references to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench—all this was a studious attention to the merits of the case. If there be a master of irrelevance and buffoonery in this House, it is the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] When I view hon. Gentlemen opposite and hear the animal noises which they make, I am reminded of a story by Rudyard Kipling in which he describes a rather unpleasant tribe of monkeys, the Bandalogs, who, it will be remembered, sat upon seats on which nobler creatures than they had once sat, and dwelt in the palaces formerly occupied by men who were worthy to represent their people, and who sang a song which, Mr. Butcher, you will recollect went as follows—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sing it."]
Here we sit in a branchy row,
Thinking of beautiful things we know,
Dreaming of deeds that we mean to do,
All complete in a minute or two.
Something noble and grand and good,
Won by merely wishing we could.
Those monkeys came to a bad end, and were displaced by people who knew their own minds more clearly, and did not make so much noise about their deliberations.
I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his irrelevance. I ask the Committee to return strictly to the merits of the case. What are the merits? They are that the delineation of constituencies in this country, or in any Parliamentary democracy, is far too much a matter which can be made the subject of gerrymandering and log-rolling, to be left to any single majority party in this House of Commons, of whichever party that' majority is composed. The peculiar nature of these merits is that the proposition which I have just enunciated is not—or was not until this week—a matter of party controversy at all.
It was a principle which was admitted and generally accepted by every single responsible body of opinion in this country. It was recognised at the time of the Speaker's Conference; recognised after the General Election when the proposal was first put forward by His

Majesty's Government that the work of the Boundary Commission should be continued; recognised when this Bill was printed, and recognised on the Second Reading of the Bill when the Home Secretary announced his proposals. The principle which I have just enunciated, and which has been frankly and admittedly violated by the Amendment which is now put forward, was not for a moment held in question until party pressure was brought to bear from a single political quarter in order that an Amendment might be made with the undoubted effect of benefiting a particular political party.
The merits of the case to which the right hon. Gentleman paid such attention are simply these: the principle that the boundaries of Parliamentary constituencies in a democracy can be delineated at the whim of a party majority is utterly vicious and ought not to be tolerated for a moment. On the contrary, the matter ought to be referred to an impartial body—call it a Boundary Commission, or what you will—in order that the whole question may not simply be viewed impartially, may not simply be decided rightly, but may be seen by the whole world to be viewed impartially and decided rightly. It is that principle which the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to violate by his present Amendment.
The kind of shoddy excuse which is now put forward, to the effect that by some secret protocol the Boundary Commission has, in fact, been consulted does not bear the smallest scrutiny whatever. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has already pointed out that the Lord President was wholly disingenuous when he referred to the functions of the Boundary Commission as continous. The functions of the Boundary Commission were complete for the moment upon the issue of their Report, and they do not revive until a moment not less than three, and not more than seven years from the time at which their Report is first enacted. How it can be honestly said or suggested—and I submit that it was not said honestly—that the functions of a body which are only revived after a period of three years and not less, can be described as continuous, passes my understanding.
The matter, however, does not rest there, because the right hon. Gentleman


has not in any sense referred this matter to the Boundary Commission. On his own showing, the right hon. Gentleman has said in substance to the Boundary Commission, or to its individual members—because that is a more accurate description—"We, the Government, have decided to give the Labour Party another 12 seats. Tell us how we can best divide up certain constituencies so as to achieve that result." They have deliberately departed from the findings of the Boundary Commission on this very subject, after it had been made apparent that the Boundary Commission had considered the very arguments which were put forward in the Second Reading Debate. They have ordered the Boundary Commission to reverse their findings as a matter of Cabinet decision, and the only question which they left to the Boundary Commission was as to which particular red lines should be drawn down which particular streets. To pretend that that is consultation with an impartial body, that that is doing something that is fair or above board, or leaving things to an impartial authority, is hypocrisy and Phariseeism, and nothing else.
The Government have come to their decision by pressure from their own party. They have told the Boundary Commission that they want another 12 seats, and now they have asked the Boundary Commission to tell them exactly how those seats shall be delineated.

Mr. Ede: Let us get the mathematics right. The Boundary Commission themselves sent the first eight seats to us before they sent the Report with an indication as to what we should do if we thought that the eight boroughs should be divided. They clearly did not regard themselves as having the last word on the subject. The other number is not 12, but nine.

Mr. Hogg: I really am not concerned with whether the right hon. Gentleman told the Boundary Commission that the Government wanted nine Labour seats or 12. What I am concerned with is the whole principle by which they ask the Boundary Commission's advice on exactly where the division or boundary is drawn, and not on the principle whether any new seat shall be created at all. It is a mere pretence, a mere piece of stupid hypocrisy, a specious and

idiotic excuse by which no one is really deceived, to pretend that this business of going to the Boundary Commission gives the Boundary Commission any right or choice as to whether certain new Labour seats should be created. That is the merit of the case. That is the transaction which is objected to as being dishonest, and not one word of the pantomime to which the Lord President treated us was directed to that point at all.
When we look at the kind of thing which is now proposed, we see the gerrymandering nature of this Amendment in all its nakedness. What is proposed is this. It is not to effect the general reorganisation of the Boundary Commissioner's Report for the purpose of giving a closer approximation to the principle of one vote, one value. It is an arbitrary selection by the Government, under pressure from their back benches, of a particular list of constituencies, and of ordering the Boundary Commission to find extra room on the benches opposite for new Members for those constituencies. It is nothing to the Government that they thereby create constituencies among the smallest in the country. It is nothing to the Government that some of the counties have grievances every bit as acute as any which those particular boroughs could possibly bring forward. It is nothing to the Government that other boroughs might put forward cases as specious. Nor is it an excuse to say that the boroughs which have been selected for preferential treatment themselves desire preferential treatment, whatever their political alignment. All boroughs desire and demand preferential treatment.
A much stronger case could be made for the City of Oxford than could be made for half these new constituencies. [An HON. MEMBER: "Question."] I propose to prove it. It has long been the view of the local authority in that constituency, and of members of all political parties, that the city has grown to a stage when it requires two Members, divided more or less as between east and west. Its population has risen to a stage at which the new constituency which I am to be given under the existing proposal amounts to something like 80,000—I think 78,000 is the exact figure—and I am advised that before there is any likely prospect of a General Election, according to the Government, that figure will rise to over 80,000.
6.0 p.m.
Now, Sir, what case can be made for Norwich which cannot equally be made for Oxford, except that Norwich has a Labour Member who can get behind the Government? What case can be made for any of these constituencies which have Labour Members which cannot be made equally for a number of other constituencies? The whole thing is a piece of cynical gerrymandering, not professed to be based on any principle except the principle of the advantage of the Labour Party, and arrived at only after an obvious threat of revolt had been levelled at the Government from its own back benchers.
The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, coming, as I thought ineffectually, to the aid of his right hon. Friend, asked us to believe in his right hon. Friend's sincerity and honourable intention. I cannot accept that assurance for this reason: we are asked to believe that the right hon. Gentleman has judged this case upon its merits, but when did those merits first become apparent to the right hon. Gentleman? Was it when he was concerned in the deliberations of the Speaker's Conference? Was it when he continued the functions of the Boundary Commission after he took his present Office? Was it when he had the Bill published? Was it when he defended the Government's proposals on the Second Reading? No—the merits which we are asked to believe in first came to the right hon. Gentleman's attention when he was threatened with a revolt from his own back benchers. We have the pitiful spectacle of two right hon. Gentlemen lamely getting up, one after the other, and putting forward a poor camouflage, a piece of humbug, in order to conceal what is a deliberate piece of straight, political gerrymandering.

Mr. Yates: Frankly, I do not think I have ever listened to more political bunkum than I have heard from the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and also from the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). I want to bring the Committee, if I can, down to the merits of the case. One would imagine that we on this side of the Committee had no right whatever to bring any criticism when any matter was before the House of Commons. Surely, on the Second Reading Debate we were entitled to point out what we

believed were anomalies? Not one Member on the other side of the Committee was able to counteract at all the arguments which we then put forward. The hon. Member for Oxford spoke just now in a way which was more than pantomime—it was more like qualifying for the Zoo. He brought forward the case of Oxford, but in Oxford the number of electors is 74,000.

Mr. Hogg: 78,000.

Mr. Yates: I am not going to argue the point as to what the figures are now, but I can tell the Committee frankly that as far as the City of Birmingham is concerned it now becomes the second city to London and, therefore, in comparison with Glasgow, it ought really to have three more seats—not one. If, indeed, we were to take the figure of 74,316 for Oxford, in this Report, it would mean that the divided constituency would fall below 40,000 and, therefore, the hon. Member for Oxford has no right at all to suggest that there is party advantage in this particular issue. I want to ask the Committee whether hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite believe it is reasonable to have constituencies of 80,000 to 87,000. As one who has tried to represent a constituency to the best of my ability, I say it is absolutely impossible adequately to represent a constituency with many more than 50,000 and, therefore, I do not think any charge whatsoever of gerrymandering can be made with any substantial accuracy.

Mr. Hogg: Why are you asking me represent 78,000?

Mr. McGhee: Why do you not shut up?

Mr. Yates: I have no doubt in my mind that any scheme of redistribution is bound to present anomalies, but one has to consider whether the alterations made produce the results which some of the hon. and right hon. Members opposite suggest. In regard to the 63 seats which are affected in the divided boroughs, where there is nearly three and a half million votes, I want to say that the average constituency is over 55,000 and I think, therefore, it is reasonable that these changes should be made.
Dealing with the City of Birmingham, 70,000 were brought into the city in the original scheme and two seats were taken away, and the corporation stated a case —I think a reasonable case. It meant that even after the additional seat, which has been conceded by these proposals, the average in the City of Birmingham—with that additional seat—will be 58,437. The average is even higher in Liverpool. In all the circumstances, therefore, I think the Government have done the right thing. I commend them for the action which they have taken. Perhaps this is not the place to talk about details, but we can argue about details as to whether or not the changes operate for or against party advantage.
I and my hon. Friends in the City of Birmingham would naturally have liked a scheme which fits in better with our point of view, but that is not the scheme which is in these proposals. Nevertheless, some anomalies were created. It simply means that in a city like Birmingham, if we are to redistribute further, we have to consider the central areas which are overcrowded and, as redevelopment of the city takes place and electors are transferred to the outer ring, we can move only in certain ways.

Sir Patrick Hannon: For the sake of accuracy, may I ask is it not a fact that the anomalies, now being apparently dealt with in the Amendment by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, were not discovered until long after the publication of the Bill?

Mr. Yates: I do not think so. I think the hon. Gentleman will remember that on the Second Reading I called attention to a resolution and a letter which had been sent to the Boundary Commission by the Town Clerk of Birmingham in which the position was pointed out. The case which we made was that, although objections had been raised officially on behalf of the city, and, following the unanimous decision of the General Purposes Committee of the Birmingham Corporation, a letter had been submitted to the Boundary Commission, their objections were never considered and, I put it to this Committee, not only were they not considered, but no reply was received to that communication. I submit to the hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Sir P.

Hannon) that the City of Birmingham, which he has had the honour to represent in this House of Commons for so many years, has never before been treated in that manner.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the Boundary Commission did not consider the objections properly submitted to them under the Act? That is a most serious suggestion if there be any truth in it. No doubt the Home Secretary will confirm or deny it, because he will know what happened.

Mr. Yates: I said that the Birmingham Corporation lodged an objection, and they never even received an answer to the letter which was forwarded.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member said that it was not considered.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Yates: I can only say that, according to the acknowledgment which was sent to the city, the matter was to be considered by the Commission.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member said that it was not considered by the Commission. If he did not mean that, perhaps he would withdraw it.

Mr. Yates: I do not know what on earth they did. The point is that the letter went forward from the city giving their objections, and the point I made during Second Reading was that the city had not been consulted. I still say that no consultation with the city took place, and it was not a fair proposition to take away a seat from the City of Birmingham without having fully consulted the city. Therefore, I think that the City of Birmingham will applaud my right hon. Friend and the Government for having restored what is their legitimate claim to 13 seats.

Sir P. Hannon: The City of Birmingham is proud to have 13 seats. What we are complaining about is that the Amendment in the name of the Home Secretary rearranges the wards in Birmingham to the advantage of the Socialist Party.

Mr. Shurmer: No, that is not true. We can tell the hon. Member all about it.

Mr. Yates: I do not accept the implications in that statement. As a matter


of fact, if the scheme contained in the Amendment is examined, it will be found that there has been no interference with any constituency represented by Conservative Members.

Mr. Shurmer: One is added.

Mr. Yates: Furthermore, under this scheme there is a gain so far as the Conservatives are concerned. That, if course, is a matter of opinion. As far as I can see, the Government have met the obvious Conservative objections to a scheme which was published in the Birmingham Press as the scheme put forward by the Labour Party, so I do not accept the view that——

Sir P. Hannon: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I must point out that both parties in Birmingham originally agreed to 12 seats; then we gradually agreed to 13 seats. What we disagree with is the re-arrangement of certain wards to the advantage of the Labour Party now.

Mr. H. Morrison: The Boundary Commission made the proposal.

Mr. Yates: I was not aware that there was any agreement in Birmingham with regard to 12 seats. So far as the city was concerned, we objected to the loss of certain seats. We maintain that the proposal to re-divide the city is the proposal of the Boundary Commission, and I entirely deny that there is any special party advantage so far as I have been able to analyse the figures. According to the Birmingham statistics, Birmingham had 10 Labour Members and three Conservative Members, and if the hon. Member examines it carefully he will find that probably there is a little, more advantage to the Conservatives.
The constituencies to be altered are constituencies at present represented by Labour Members. It is a matter of regret to see the passing of old divisions such as Deritend, West Birmingham and Duddeston, which for many years have had historical associations with the City of Birmingham. But it is inevitable, in view of the fact that those divisions have the smallest electorates. In Duddeston there is an electorate of only 27,000, and in Deritend of only 25,000. Even though those divisions are at present represented by Labour Members, we could not reasonably object to a re-arrangement which involves their amalgamation. Therefore,

I entirely deny—and it is irresponsible so to suggest—that this is done for the purpose of gaining party advantage.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Wadsworth: We must have a complete understanding of what the hon. Member has said. I gather that the City of Birmingham protested to the Boundary Commission about the rearrangement of the seats.

Mr. Alpass: No, the number.

Mr. Wadsworth: There was an opportunity for a public inquiry, surely?

Mr. Shurmer: No.

Mr. Wadsworth: To carry it further, the hon. Member is saying that the City of Birmingham was not allowed a public inquiry.

Mr. Shurmer: They foisted the 12 seats proposal on us.

Mr. Yates: The hon. Member for Buckrose (Mr. Wadsworth) is quite correct: we had no public inquiry. During Second Reading—it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT—I read out a letter from the town clerk who said that, based on the population, Birmingham was entitled to 13 seats, because the average for Great Britain was just over 57,000, and 13 seats would give Birmingham an average electorate of 58,000.

Mr. Wadsworth: That is a very serious charge.

Mr. Yates: The town clerk sent his letter, which was acknowledged. The regional council of the Labour Party also raised objections, and not only sent a letter calling attention to the fact that they believed we were entitled to a bigger representation; but protested in favour of 13 Parliamentary divisions, but there was no reply. A case was made out for consideration on behalf of the City of Birmingham, and on behalf of other cities who had not been consulted. The Scottish Boundary Commissioners proceeded in a different way. They not only acknowledged protests but sent replies to everybody who had——

Mr. Neil Maclean: Oh, no.

Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Member has got it wrong there.

Mr. Yates: Then I can only assume that they did not proceed according to the principles they themselves laid down. I was basing my remarks on the Scottish Boundary Commission's Report, in which it was stated that they were proceeding on that principle. Apparently they did not proceed according to their own rules, which makes it worse.

Mr. N. Maclean: They absolutely refused to hear me when I wanted to go before them, and it was only after the intervention of Mr. Speaker that they wrote and asked me to go to see them.

Mr. Yates: That only strengthens my case. So far as Scotland is concerned, they must have proceeded in a better fashion than was the case in England, because the average electorate is so much lower. If we had done as well as they did across the Border, we should not be so badly off.

Mr. Kirkwood: In Scotland we proceed in a more intelligent manner.

Sir John Mellor: Did the City of Birmingham ask for a public inquiry?

Mr. Cecil Poole: No, they asked to be heard.

Mr. Yates: I could not say. I do not think they asked for a public inquiry. They simply submitted their case, which they naturally thought would be considered.

Mr. Poole: Is it not a fact that the representations of the City of Birmingham and the regional council of the Labour Party were in these terms, in effect: "If an inquiry is held, we desire to have the opportunity of presenting our case to it"?

Mr. Hogg: That gives the game away all right.

Mr. Yates: That may be the case. I am putting forward the view that a city with a population of over a million is entitled to be consulted, and there ought to have been a public inquiry. Nevertheless, there was not, so we put forward our case, which I think is the same as that of other cities. In conclusion, I submit that, if Birmingham is to have constituencies with an average electorate of 58,000 no hon. or right hon. Member opposite can claim that the average is too

low. We are entitled to our proper representation, and I personally welcome the action of the Government on behalf of the City of Birmingham. My right hon. Friend will be respected by all parties in the City of Birmingham for the fact that Birmingham's proper representation has been restored. Therefore, I shall give full support to the Government in the action which they have taken and which, in my opinion, transcends party considerations.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: I want very briefly to deal with the story of this case as it has seemed to me since I came back from America after the original Debate had taken place. I will not take up very much of the time of the Committee, but I would be grateful to have the Lord President's attention; it is largely of him that I have to speak. This is how I understand this case, and I am sure the Lord President will be good enough to correct me if I am wrong. A Speaker's Conference was called; it was an all-party conference. The case is made by the Lord President that the agreements entered into between the parties cannot be binding upon an ensuing Parliament. What he really says in effect—I challenge him to deny it—is that a party which is in a minority bargains to the best of its ability in an all-party conference, such as the Speaker's Conference, intending to go back on its words if by chance it is returned at the next Election. That is the case, if I read the Lord President's lines aright.

Mr. H. Morrison: As the hon. Gentleman has challenged me to deny it, I had better, for the purposes of the record, say that I do deny it.

Mr. Baxter: I am very much obliged to the Lord President of the Council. He is always courteous on these occasions.—[An HON. MEMBER: "On all occasions."] —Well, he is with me at any rate. If he denies that he had that in mind at all, what he then says, in effect, is that it is the right of a party entering into an all-party conference, if the party is in a minority, to act differently when it achieves a majority. I think I am expressing the Lord President's mind accurately. If so, may I say that I think it is a contemptible doctrine? I do not know how, in business or in normal life, agreements between gentlemen would possibly last in these circumstances. [An HON. MEMBER: "We are discussing


politicians."] Well, I still think that politicians must be considered as gentlemen. The word "honourable" is not merely a polite figure of speech in the House of Commons; "honourable Member" means an honourable Member.
For the Socialist Party to have it in its mind to go back on an all-party conference if it achieved power is one of the most serious arraignments of the Socialist Party that I have ever heard. I put this point again. Suppose at the end of the Speaker's Conference, the Lord President, or one of his delegates, or chief "stooges," or the Home Secretary, had stood up and said to the Speaker and to the Conference: "Make no mistake about it, the agreements entered into and reached today will not be binding upon us if we win the next Election."

Mr. Ede: This is the second time today it has been suggested that I was a Member of the Speaker's Conference. I was not.

Mr. Baxter: I said that if the right hon. Gentleman had been a member. There were representatives of the Socialist Party speaking with the authority of the Socialist Party. It does not matter whether it was any particular Minister. Whoever it was, they would not have dared to say at the end of the Speaker's Conference, "We do not intend to abide by these agreements."

Mr. George Porter: I would like to ask a question whilst the hon. Gentleman is dealing with the Speaker's Conference. Is it not a fact that any recommendations of that Conference would be agreed recommendations, and that the only things binding would be those recommendations which were supported by the House?

Mr. Baxter: That question is clearly outside the point. It was an all-party conference, composed of all parties in the House. The Election takes place, however, and Socialists find themselves in a great majority. They then put the Boundary Commission into effect and come back to the House suggesting the redistribution of seats. What is the attitude of the Government once that happens? They look at the Report, and they see that the Socialists may lose many seats by it. The situation alarms them,

I think with some effect, because at the next Election a matter of 10 or 20 seats may be vital, unless the public comes to its senses and sweeps the party out completely by a huge majority.
Reverting to the actions which the Government have taken since the Report was issued, they do away, first, with the two City seats. They take away from London the representation it has had in the City of London for 600 years. They put their vandal hands upon the great tradition, and by pettifogging and wretched arguments sweep away one of the great traditions of this country, but they reduce the anti-Socialist vote by two. What does tradition matter if the Socialist Party benefit by two votes? They then turn upon the universities, not one representative of which supports the Government— not one. Is it not an odd coincidence that, in their passion for democracy, with their creeping common sense of two and two must make four, that they should put their hands upon these seats, none of which supported them? It is a very odd coincidence that their passion for democracy should take this form.
What do they do next? They decide that the recommendations of the Commission must be rewritten. Again, they find a way of creating eight new seats, where it looks fairly certain that they would be Socialist seats. The only course which would have been honourable and respectful to this House would have been to say, "We must have an all-party discussion on these alterations once the Commission has reported. We must do nothing which will alter the voting in favour of one party" To use the term "Parliamentary control" when the Government can use their majority is to use words that have no meaning. It is Government control and not Parliamentary control; the Government can carry through anything. Having gone through the set-up of the Speaker's Conference and the Report having been issued, the Government had no right to make any alterations which would result in their voting favour without consulting the other parties. It was for Parliament and not the Government, to decide, but for the Government, as the instrument of Transport House, deliberately creating rotten boroughs—[An HON. MEMBER: "Abolishing rotten boroughs."]—Rotten boroughs, that is what these new seats should be called.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Shurmer: How, then, does the hon. Member reconcile the abolition of the City of London representation, with an electorate of 4,000, and the abolition of university representation, with an electorate of about 10,000, with the position of Birmingham, where there are 20,000 to 22,000——

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid that I cannot allow the hon. Member to put forward that line of argument, because I cannot allow the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) to answer it. We are dealing with increasing and not decreasing the number.

Mr. Baxter: I knew that you would rule in that way, Mr. Beaumont.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member knows that he should not tempt the other side.

Mr. Baxter: You will be the first to know, Mr. Beaumont, that we are not discussing the merits or otherwise of university representation.

Mr. Shurmer: The hon. Member mentioned it.

Mr. Baxter: I was merely calling attention to the fact that it is an odd coincidence that not one university member supports the Government. I say that they have been put in the tumbril for that reason. I would ask your permission, Mr. Beaumont, to say just one more thing, even if it may be out of Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member thinks that it is out of Order, it will save me the trouble of pulling him up if he does not refer to it.

Mr. Baxter: I was uncertain about it, and I thought that you would call me to Order if necessary. As one who has been born in the Empire and has been away from this country, I say that it is a great grief to find these splendid things disappearing. If we consider the sequence of events since the Speaker's Conference, with the twisting and turning of the Reports sent in by the Commission, and the Government deliberately taking actions conducive to Party advantage, I say that the Government and the Socialist Party have earned the contempt of all.

Miss Bacon: The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) have given us their usual caustic oratorical fireworks, but I thought that on this occasion the fireworks were rather damp. We have heard these same speeches so often during the passage of this Bill that they are becoming monotonous, and I even detected some boredom on the faces of Members opposite. I am very sorry that Members opposite are attributing a party political motive to an attempt to redress the grievances of our large cities. I agree entirely with this Amendment. I thought that the Home Secretary put up a very good case for giving extra seats to those cities which were under-represented. If we accept the principle of "one man, one vote," we must also accept the principle that one man's vote ought not to be only half as effective as another man's vote. We are attempting to put this right. It has been said on several occasions today that we are doubling the representation of the eight cities, but that is not so. At the present time, several of these eight constituencies, such as Blackburn and Norwich, are represented by two Labour Members, and therefore I do not see how we can possibly be increasing the Labour representation.

Mr. McKïe: Why not?

Miss Bacon: If they already have two Labour Members and there are still only two seats, how can we be increasing the number? It is ridiculous to say that we are doing that. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), who is my next-door neighbour in that city, say that Leeds ought to be represented by six Members and not seven. I am sure that the citizens of Leeds will be interested to hear his opinion on that. I agree with him that no political party and no organisation in Leeds asked for an extra seat. Surely the reason for that was that when the Boundary Commission's proposals came out, we could see that other cities around Leeds, such as Bradford and Sheffield, were losing some of their Parliamentary representatives. At that time, I thought, on the figures, that Leeds should possibly have an extra seat, because as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, through redistribution we are adding to the Leeds electorate by bringing in thousands of voters from the county constituencies. We


did not ask for an extra seat, because we could see that some of the cities outside were being deprived of their representatives.
I want to put one specific point to the Home Secretary, and to receive from him a certain assurance. When the Boundary Commission issued their two reports, a certain time was set aside for organisations to make representations to the Commission, where we thought that mistakes had been made. We did make such representations, and we were evidently more fortunate than Birmingham in this respect, because the Boundary Commission considered our objections and granted what we asked. But, we were confronted on Thursday with the Amendment on the Order Paper, which means that we have not the time to ask the Boundary Commission to make any alterations we think ought to be made. At first sight, the constituencies in Leeds seem to be geographically untidy. I think that the set-up interferes more than is necessary with the existing boundaries.
We, in Leeds, have not put down an Amendment for two reasons. First of all, we have not had time since Thursday to consider the Commission's proposals in detail. In the second place, I think it is very unsatisfactory to debate individual constituencies on the Floor of the House. I am not competent to judge the various Amendments which have been put down by Members in this respect, and I am sure that other hon. Members would not be competent to judge what should happen in the case of Leeds if we put down an Amendment. I do not think it is right that the House should decide exact boundaries. They must be considered by the Boundary Commission in an impartial way. It would be much more satisfactory if we could have a specific assurance from the Home Secretary that there will be an opportunity between now and the Report stage for local organisations to make representations and put alternative schemes before the Boundary Commission. If that could be done, I am sure that it would go a long way towards meeting some of the objections of our people.

Professor Savory: I have listened with great attention, and without making any interruption whatever, to the speeches of the Home Secretary and the Lord President of the

Council, and I must say that I cannot help expressing my surprise that neither of those spokesmen of the Government, nor anyone else, so far as I heard, referred to the position of Northern Ireland, and the way in which Northern Ireland is placed at a still further disadvantage by the proposals put forward in this Amendment. I would remind the Committee that between 1918 and 1922 the present six counties of Northern Ireland were represented by 30 Members in this House. By the Act of 1920 an immense reduction was made whereby the 30 were reduced to 13, including the representative of the university. At the General Election of 1922, and ever since, Northern Ireland has been represented by only 13 Members.
We, too, like England, Scotland and Wales have had our Boundary Commission, and that Commission have pointed out that in Northern Ireland the average electorate is not less than 71,457. When I made a calculation on the original allocation of seats to England, Scotland and Wales, I found that Northern Ireland would be entitled, if she were a part of Great Britain, to an extra three seats. If, on the other hand, Northern Ireland were part of Scotland she would be entitled to five extra seats. The addition of all those 17 extra seats to England enormously increases the discrepancy. The Boundary Commission have said themselves that the quota of Northern Ireland is 124 per cent. of that of Great Britain. We have heard today about the City of Norwich; we have heard about various other boroughs. I would like to quote from the Report of the Boundary Commission—I shall give only a few examples, as I do not wish to take up too much time of the Committee. I shall give the figures for the County Borough of Belfast. The East Division, as proposed by the Commission, will have 62,707 electors; the North Division 76,504 electors; the South Division 72,106 electors; and the West Division 81,892. I would like the Committee to compare those figures with those for the City of Norwich, about which we have heard so much today.

Mr. Kirkwood: On a point of Order. The hon. Member has apparently forgotten that Northern Ireland has its own Parliament.

Professor Savory: I was just coming to that point; I knew that that argument


would be put forward. It is true that Northern Ireland has its own Parliament, and that was undoubtedly the reason why, in 1920, the representation was reduced. Hon. Members will not forget that under the Act of Union, Ireland was to have no fewer than 100 Members. Right down to 1922 she had 103, including the three representatives of the universities— Trinity College, Dublin, had two. When the Act of Union was repealed, in 1920, that reduction was necessary and reasonable, although I think it went rather far. The point made by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) was not really a point of Order, but an argument. My reply is that all the Customs and Excise duties, all the Income Tax, including Surtax and taxes on profits— and I see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the Front Bench, who, I know, will support me—are reserved——

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I cannot see the relevance of what the hon. Member is now saying to this Amendment.

6.45 p.m.

Professor Savory: I merely wished to reply to the hon. Gentleman's interruption, and to point out that the whole of our taxation in Northern Ireland is collected by the Imperial Parliament and paid into the Imperial Exchequer. Therefore, if "taxation without representation is tyranny" we are entitled to a representation proportionate to that of England, Scotland and Wales. I sympathise with the large cities, but I think the Home Secretary and the Lord President might have referred to the way in which this Amendment will increase enormously the disproportion of representation from which Northern Ireland at present suffers, as the Boundary Commission have clearly laid down. As I am the honorary secretary of the Ulster Unionist Party at Westminster, I felt it was my duty to put forward the case of Northern Ireland. As this Bill will deprive me of my seat, and as perhaps this may be almost the last time that I shall have the honour and pleasure of addressing the Committee, I beg the Government to give some weight to the arguments which I have put forward.

Mrs. Castle: There have been so many deliberate distortions in

this Debate of the facts of the situation we are now discussing that I think it is important that those who are affected by the changes which the Government propose by this Amendment should try to put the facts before the Committee and the country in the interests not only of Members on this side but of all those people, in the constituencies which we represent, who have fought and struggled to achieve the very change which the Government are now suggesting should be made. We have had, from the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) remarkable attempts, consciously, and, in my view, deliberately, to invert the known facts on the lines that if enough mud is thrown some of it will stick.
This Bill is an outstanding example of political disinterestedness. Some of us on this side go so far as to say that it approaches political suicide for our party. The Government have given up a political advantage in order to achieve a more even distribution of seats. The small increase granted by this Amendment does nothing to correct the turn of the balance of advantage away from the Labour Party. Hon. Members opposite know in their hearts that there has been a gift in many directions to their point of view. Certainly this small increase would be inadequate to redress the change in balance which this Bill achieves.
I was sorry to hear the wild remarks of the hon. Member for Oxford. I tried to make an accurate note of them. He said that these changes and this Amendment were due to party pressure brought to bear by a single political party for the advantage of a single political party. I know that the hon. Gentleman is rather impulsive, but I think that he ought to apprise himself of the situation before he gets up in this Committee and makes remarks like that, if he expects to be treated as a serious Member of the House. It is inaccurate to say that, so far as the eight over-large constituencies are concerned, the change which is being made to retain the two Members which they already possess has been achieved as a result of party pressure brought to bear by a single political party. That is not the case in my constituency, and had the hon. Gentleman consulted the local Conservative association in Blackburn before he made that statement——

Mr. Hogg: I was aware of that, and I said that each borough that wanted preferential treatment wanted it as a whole. I was saying that the change in the Government's attitude after the printing of the Bill was directly due to party pressure, influenced by party motives, and redounded to the advantage of one party—and I repeat that.

Mrs. Castle: I think that when the hon. Gentleman reads HANSARD tomorrow he will find that he said that pressure was brought to bear by a single political party, and I maintain that is grossly inaccurate so far as Blackburn is concerned, where all-party decisions were made and all-party conferences were held and all-party pressure was brought to bear on the Home Secretary to readjust this very grave slight on an industrial town of growing importance in our national economy. At a time when we are saying how important is the cotton industry in Lancashire, to demote one of the largest cotton towns to single-Member status seemed to every citizen in Blackburn unjustified. It was not only the organised political parties, but the cotton manufacturers and industrialists and all types of organisation who joined in this protest and brought the utmost pressure to bear. I have copies of letters of protest which were sent to the Home Secretary by the Young Women's Christian Association. Perhaps that organisation is now on the suspect list of the hon. Gentleman.
These organisations brought the utmost democratic pressure to bear on the Home Secretary for it is in the interests of better democratic representation in Britain that important industrial centres like Blackburn, of such a large size should be allowed to retain the two Members which they have had since the Reform Bill of 1832. The people of Blackburn are as justly proud of their traditions as anyone in the City of London is proud of the traditions of the City of London. Nor was this all-party pressure limited to Blackburn. Actually, all the eight constituencies with over 80,000 electors met as a whole: not only their Members of Parliament but their local authorities, supported by parties of all complexions in those constituencies; and passed a unanimous resolution laying down the view that it was totally impossible for one Member of Parliament adequately and efficiently to represent boroughs of

this size. The decision was taken on a matter of principle and was not concerned with party advantage. There was not a single dissident party voice against the decision.
Then the hon. Member for Oxford went on to say that this Amendment is to the advantage of a single political party. I knew he was defeatist about the prospects of the Conservative Party, but I did not know that he was quite so defeatist as all that. There is nothing in this situation to prevent his political party recapturing, if it can, the representation of Blackburn. Let them come and try. It is totally inaccurate to say that this is an advantage which must necessarily and permanently and irredeemably redound to the advantage of a single political party. I am honoured by the hon. Gentleman's assumption that I am so strongly entrenched, and I assure him that I intend to retain my seat for Blackburn, but I did not expect such testimony and support from his side of the House. I think that it is imperative that we should not get in this Committee a repetition of the wild and irresponsible statements which we are becoming accustomed to hear from the hon. Member for Oxford and which show a total lack of appreciation of the importance of maintaining democratic principles in this country, which this Bill goes a step towards maintaining.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I want to make my position clear with regard to the eight constituencies with over 80,000 constituents, which is a matter quite apart, in my opinion, from the other constituencies dealt with in the Amendment put forward by the Home Secretary. When the Report of the Boundary Commission was published, the borough council, the Conservative association, I myself and the hon. and gallant Member for North Paddington (Captain Field) all sent in protests with regard to the amalgamation of North and South Paddington. Every one affected by the proposals of the Boundary Commission was asked to send in a protest by a certain time if they wished to do so.
There is nothing extraordinary about protests being sent in on that account. We entered protests solely on the ground that it would be quite impossible for any one Member efficiently and adequately to represent Paddington as one constituency. At the time the Boundary Commission


were considering the matter, the number of voters was 87,000. In one year the number increased by 6,500 to 93,500. As time passes and the population of Paddington is steadily increasing, it is quite likely that when a General Election comes Paddington as one constituency would have nearer 100,000 voters than 90,000. In common sense, I say that it is quite impossible for that constituency to be adequately and efficiently represented by one Member in the House of Commons. It was for that reason that I protested, and everyone else concerned protested. It was a unanimous protest from Paddington on that matter.
I still hold to my opinion, and I am glad that this Amendment has been moved by the Home Secretary, that in the case of these eight constituencies with an enormous number of voters they shall have, as they have today, two Members of Parliament. I intended to put down an Amendment myself on the Committee Stage had one not been put down by the Home Secretary. Nothing would induce me to go back on that, but quite a different matter in my opinion is the question of the alteration which the Home Secretary has embodied in the Amendment, not only affecting the eight constituencies, but quite an appreciable additional number. There should be some high datum line and low datum line for the numbers in any constituency to be represented by one Member, and it was considered that the high datum line should be 80,000 and that any constituency below that should not have two Members. But that is not what the Government are doing. They are going far below that 80,000, and there is no datum line so far as they are concerned. The number is one that just suits their convenience.
7.0 p.m.
It will be remembered that in the first Report of the Boundary Commission there was to be 25 per cent. one way or the other above or below the datum line, but in this Amendment there is nothing at all laid down as a high limit. That is a great mistake, and I suggest to the Home Secretary that something should be done in the matter in order that there should be a high limit. There would be anomalies in constituencies if a high limit of 80,000 was adopted but I suggest that a high limit of twice the low limit

should be considered That is not what the Government have done. I quite agree with the general complaint and attack which has been made by my right hon. and hon. Friends with regard to this Bill, namely, that the Government have not fulfilled the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, but have gone back on them. When the whole country realises what the Government have done, the Government will be discredited, and they cannot complain when attacks are made on them by my right hon. and hon. Friends, because they deserve it. They have only themselves to blame.
I will not vote for this large increase in constituencies from 596 to 613, but I will vote for the eight constituencies to retain their two Members. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Boundary Commission particularly mentioned these eight constituencies with over 80,000 electors. They recognised the disadvantage of having that very large number of voters, and they also recognised that if any alteration were made, it might lead to other constituencies with a lower number taking objection and saying that they also ought to have a larger number of Members. The Government are doing, by this Amendment, exactly what the Boundary Commission thought might happen, for they have gone far below the 80,000. In doing so they have acted very wrongfully and unwisely. I am extremely glad about the number of Members for the eight constituencies, and so far as that part of the Amendment is concerned, I will vote for it.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: I want to support as strongly as I can the Amendment which is before the Committee. I do so because I am conscious of the fact that this is a fair attempt to meet a problem with which I suggest even a Conservative Government would feel impelled to deal in similar circumstances. I very much regret that suggestions have been made by the Leader of the Opposition and Members on the opposite benches which implied that the Amendment is not actuated by a desire to serve the best interests of the country. The Report of the Boundary Commission aroused such a volume of unrest and criticism, as a result of the unfortunate position of some of the main industrial cities and towns of this country, that whatever Government was in power


would have had to give serious reconsideration to the proposals that were made. After all, the industrial life and prosperity of the nation depend upon the activities of our large cities and towns.
I want to convey to the Home Secretary the appreciation of the City of Bradford for the very fair treatment which this Amendment gives. In the original scheme, the Boundary Commission proposed that Bradford should be removed from the normal system of representation to the abnormal; in other words, we were to lose one of our four seats; and I express the view of all parties in that city when I say that if the figures had been worked out correctly, we should have had no possible complaint against the original Report of the Boundary Commission. Our strong point in Bradford is that the Boundary Commission themselves departed from the formula laid down, and denied Bradford the retention of their four seats.
Suggestions have been made that the Amendment is just a bit of political manoeuvre. I can assure hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that in the City of Bradford that view is not accepted, either by Conservative, Liberal or Labour people. All political parties in Bradford were unanimous in making representations to the Home Secretary, and through the Home Secretary to the Commission, that Bradford should retain its four Parliamentary seats, and such a unanimous and enthusiastic decision by all parties in the city was supported very energetically by our popular local Press, "The Telegraph and Argus." There was strong resentment in Bradford, not on political grounds, but on grounds of equity and fairness, that Bradford should be denied adequate representation.
I want to quote to the Committee from Monday's "Telegraph and Argus" the views that have been expressed by no other person than the chief Tory agent in the city in order to refute the suggestions or implications made by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) that this proposal by the Home Secretary is a political manoeuvre. Speaking in connection with the Amendment which has been tabled and which we are discussing at the moment, the Conservative chief agent in Bradford gave an interview and this is what appeared in the "Telegraph and Argus":

'We think that it is a very reasonable composition of the territory, from an organisation point of view and in every other way.' This was the opinion expressed by Mr. Herbert Lee, chief Conservative agent, commenting on the Government Amendment today.
It goes on to credit Mr. Lee with having said:
'We have no complaints whatever. We feel that the Boundary Commission have clone a good job, but it is a pity that in their original proposals they did not take the action now contemplated by the Government'.
There is the chief Conservative agent for Bradford saying, in other words, that his Conservative organisation welcomed the fact that the Home Secretary, in his wisdom, had decided to rectify an obvious error by the Boundary Commission in respect of Bradford. I go further. Even the Liberal Party are very optimistic about the change in the boundaries of the City of Bradford. Mr. Short, speaking for the Liberals, said:
The Liberal Party has benefited a great deal by the rearrangement specified by the Government Amendment.
Far from this being gerrymandering by the Labour Party, it is agreed on all sides in Bradford that the Amendment put down by my right hon. Friend is detrimental, if anything, to our maintaining four Bradford representatives in this House. That is the general opinion of Conservatives and Liberals, and I should say, very largely of the Labour Party.
Speaking for myself and for my three Bradford colleagues, I say that we are less concerned about whether our seats are retained by this adjustment than we are that the City of Bradford shall have fair and equitable representation, in order that our great industrial activities may find true expression in the House. I have no apology to make. From the political point of view, we in Bradford accept the proposals, which are not as favourable as the proposals which we put on the Order Paper, as representing the views of all political parties in the city. We withdrew our Amendment from the Paper, not because we believe that the proposals of the Home Secretary are better, but because we believe that they will commend themselves more to the House of Commons as representing the impartial view of the Boundary Commission.
I sincerely regret the attempt that has been made to suggest that the Home Secretary and his colleagues are actuated by a desire to influence the Bill from a


Labour point of view. Most extraordinary suggestions have been made by the Leader of the Opposition, but the country will not accept this matter in the light that he expects. The country will accept the viewpoint of the local people, and of the agents in various parts of the country who have been sufficiently frank to say: "We have received a fair deal from the Commission." They will not be concerned about the pettifogging political bias of the Leader of the Opposition or about his attempt to represent to this country and to countries throughout the world that the Labour Government are concerned only about trying to gerrymander the Representation of the People Bill.
We have had a shocking exhibition of Parliamentary leadership from the Leader of the Opposition, a man who has given great service to this country and whose reputation throughout the world has always stood high. It is a terrible thing for him to try, particularly in connection with this Bill, grossly to misrepresent the policy of the Government——

Mr. Manningham-Buller: He has not done so.

Mr. McLeavy: —and to present the picture to the world that the Labour Government are less honest, less efficient and less fair than previous Administrations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members say "Hear, hear." I say that the right hon. Gentleman today has performed a very great disservice to the principles of democracy. Democracy, if it is to survive at all, can do so only upon honesty and integrity in criticism as well as in policy. The whole of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman deliberately tried to misrepresent the policy of the Government, which I believe will be accepted by the mass of the people of this country.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Osborne: I hope that the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy) will forgive me if I do not follow all his arguments. It is interesting to notice how each hon. Member naturally takes the narrow point of view of his own town or country. The hon. Member said that Bradford would do much better in industrial production if it had four Members rather than three. It is on that

point that I would like to make one or two observations.
I have been saddened as I listened to the Debate to think how we are wasting our time discussing whether there should be another 15 or 16 Members when the nation is faced with the possibility of war and the certainty of starvation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] The Chairman will keep me in Order, thank you. The point I wish to put to the Committee is that I shall vote against the Amendment because I believe that the Government are wasting the time of the Committee and turning the attention of the country to things that are not even of secondary importance. We are faced with problems to which we ought to be giving our time now. There was a good deal of sound and fury earlier between hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Birmingham—great heat, great noise, and much commotion. Whether Birmingham has an extra Member or not will not help to feed the people of Birmingham or help them with their other problems. I accuse the Government of not using Parliamentary time to the best advantage.

The Deputy-Chairman: I was hoping that the hon. Member would soon come to the discussion of the Amendment. He has not done so as yet.

Mr. Osborne: The Amendment, as I understand it, is whether a certain number of new seats should be created.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is so, and the hon. Member must now direct his remarks to that point.

Mr. Osborne: The point I am trying to make is that whether or not there are these extra seats will not make any difference to the real problems with which we are faced and which this Committee should be facing now.

The Deputy-Chairman: We are not discussing those problems this afternoon. We are discussing an increase in the number of representatives.

Mr. Osborne: I must bow to your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, but I should like to say, as a protest, before I sit down, that I will vote against this Amendment because I believe that the Government are failing to face the real problems and are wasting the time of the House and the country on things of only secondary importance.

Mr. Cecil Poole: I will be very brief. I do not propose to deal with any particular constituency because I have hardly any claim to do so other than the fact that I have 110,000 constituents at present and therefore welcome this Bill because it will relieve me of some of that burden. I will say no more than that about my own constituency.
When Parliamentary institutions throughout the world are in a very parlous state and when Parliamentary institutions are being destroyed and political parties are becoming submerged, it is of paramount importance that in this Parliament we should set an example to the whole world. I believe that fundamentally, and therefore I very much regret the tone of the Debate this afternoon. We are asked by the Opposition to believe that here is some great constitutional issue which is being gerrymandered by the Government. The Opposition feel that so deeply and feel so profoundly that the Government are guilty of this that at the present time I can count 10 of them on the Opposition side of the Committee, so great is the constitutional crisis which is being gerrymandered by the Government. Let us have that on record so that we may know how much there is behind the filibustering of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg).

Colonel Dower: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont, a statement was made that only 10 Members of the Opposition were in the Committee. There are II.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of Order, but a point of information.

Mr. Poole: There were 10½ actually because one was in transit while I was speaking. I greatly regretted the Opposition's approach to this question this afternoon. The hon. Member for Oxford, in that nice, polite, gentle way of his which we all so much appreciate—I admit that we all hear him in very great fear and trembling, wondering when he is going to throw a fit—has in this Debate, which is so pregnant, accused the Government of hyprocrisy, humbug—and the Home Secretary of dishonesty—gerrymandering and a multitude of other things, which charges are apparently endorsed by the right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench. He accused the

Government of these things knowing that they are untrue. Why? Because the just demands of the industrial areas of this country are being met. Hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite ought to be the last people to accuse anybody of gerrymandering. They have gerrymandered the electorate of this country as long as they have been a political party, and they sought to do it even on this Bill a few days ago when they tried to preserve the right of 4,500 people in the City of London to return two Members to this House. Then they have the audacity to accuse this side of the House of gerrymandering. It is a reflection of the foulness of their own minds. It is an indication of the depths to which they themselves would stoop if they ever had the opportunity.
I wonder why the Tory Party think that they alone are virtuous. Some of us consider that they have been singularly lacking in virtue not only during this Parliament, but while they were in power. What we have seen today is an index of the measure of the optimism they feel about the next General Election. It is an index of the faith they have in the programme of their "Industrial Charter" and all the other nonsense with which they hope to win the people. They are so full of hope that they recognise that they have not a chance of winning any of the new seats which are being created——

Mr. Osborne: What about North Croydon?

Mr. Poole: I hope the hon. Gentleman can get consolation out of North Croydon because he has been waiting an awfully long time for it. What we have seen today is an indication of the value which the Tory Party attach to their hopes and prospects in this country.
I promised to be brief.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I do not often inflict myself on this House and when I do I am usually brief. I finish on the note on which I began. I think it is extremely unfortunate that in this Debate when we might have sent out to the countries in Europe where Parliamentary institutions are falling, some indication that in this Parliament we could do things properly, there should be an attempt to besmear what the Government are rightly doing, by cheap innuendoes purely for party political ends.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The Opposition are justified in being a little surprised at the attitude adopted by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. C. Poole). Judging by the words he used, I wonder if he is quite a fair judge of what is and what is not a fair argument. I do not think he could have listened to the arguments used by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition or my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) or anybody else from this side of the Committee.
This Debate has done His Majesty's Government a great deal of harm. The arguments suggested—I will not say "used"—by the Lord President were so completely fallacious and misleading and cardboard that they did not need even a breath of opposition to blow them to pieces. How is it that without notice being given, so to speak, the Government could approach the Boundary Commission, whether individually, severally, jointly or in any other way, without informing anybody in His Majesty's Opposition or any other Party? The right hon. Gentleman said, "We are responsible as the Government." That may be so. Lots of us have to carry responsibility in the ultimate event, but most of us have the decency to consult others who will be affected by our ultimate actions. That is exactly the point, and that is exactly where the arguments used by Government Front Bench speakers have done the Government themselves such an immense amount of harm. They are running true to form. The slogan of the Socialist Party now is, "We do not believe in consultation, whether it be with the T.U.C., the employers, other parties" and so on, whether in connection with the fair representation of the people or anything else. That is a contradiction of everything the Opposition believe, and that is why we object to the action of His Majesty's Government. Our policy is built up on consultation with the men in the jobs——

Mr. Randall: What about 1926?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Hon. Members opposite who laugh at that remark do not remember the part which the Conservative Party have played in building up and in helping Coalition Governments in this country and in leaving those Coalitions clean in

every case—not as some other parties have done.

Mr. Randall: Alice in Wonderland.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Let me follow up that line of objection because I want to make some inquiries from His Majesty's Government. In the first place, if they felt that additional seats had to be found, if they felt there was some unfairness in the rate of distribution of votes, why, first of all, did they not make any attempt to consult with anyone else in the matter? Secondly, why is it that we have had before us as a Committee, or as Members of the different political parties, no record, no story, no answer from the Boundary Commission, either jointly or severally, as to the questions put to them by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman has as much information from the Boundary Commission as we have—the division and statistics in the White Paper.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: If that is all that His Majesty's Government were working on, I am sorry for them. I should have thought that a great deal more information might well have been asked for and might well have been given. I do not think there is anything like enough information. I want to put one or two specific cases. The hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) said an hon. Member could not possibly represent a constituency if there were more than 50,000 electors. I have been representing one for the last 14 years and it now has some 87,000 electors.

Mr. Yates: What I said was that an hon. Member could not represent adequately a constituency with many more than 50,000 electors.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have had to represent a constituency of 87,000 electors and, though possibly my majority is not quite so large as it was at the beginning, it has remained substantial, and that possibly is some proof that it can be done. However, if we take the figure of 50,000, did the Government approach the Boundary Commission on that basis? Is that the figure they chose as being a fair measure of efficiency in constituency organisation and fair representation? I wonder if there was any question posed to the Boundary Commission on that issue pure and simple


when it came to what the Government apparently considered borderline cases but which the Boundary Commission did not consider borderline cases?

Mr. Ede: No, let me make it quite plain, there was no influence brought to bear by the Government on the Boundary Commission with regard to that matter. The Boundary Commission presented their first report, which this House did not like. The Boundary Commission was asked to think again on the new rules. From that day until the time when I received the letter which was read out to the Committee this afternoon, I had no communication with the Boundary Commission. The only other communication I made to them was when the Government decided that one extra seat was to be given to each of the nine cities, and we asked them to divide the cities into the number of constituencies we had selected.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for making that part of the story clear, but may I say that that part of the story was already clear to me? I hope I was not misleading him by what I said. The point is, where did Bristol come into the picture, and why?

Mr. Ede: I explained that to the Committee earlier.—[An HON. MEMBER: "He was not here."] Bristol came into the picture because, when we divided the electorate of Bristol by the quota, we found that if they were given one extra seat they would still be within the limits of what the Boundary Commission themselves called a normal constituency.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: My answer to that is that if they had not been given one extra seat, they would still have been within the limits of the Boundary Commission. The right hon. Gentleman has given the case away completely. They were looking for a case. Why? Let me inform the Committee what are the figures for Bristol. There are five seats at the moment, before this Amendment is accepted, Central, East, North, South and West. The number of electors in those divisions are roughly 64,700, 67,000, 63,400, 62,600, 59,200. I do not think anybody would say that those figures are abnormally high in a comparatively densely populated city where no great area has to be covered, but if the right hon. Gentleman says those figures are too high and that they are

beyond the possibility of fair representation in this House, I hope he will tell us so now. Does he really think that constituencies which vary between 59,000 and 67,000 in a city are too big to be fairly represented?

Mr. Ede: I say that every one of them is above the average.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is not going far enough because, if he says that——

Mr. Alpass: Mr. Alpass rose——

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Member had better wait, because I shall tell him a little more.

Mr. Alpass: May I ask a question? The hon. Member, if I may say so without offence, does not represent Bristol; like myself he represents a county constituency outside it. Does he not agree that the grant of an extra seat to Bristol will give general satisfaction to all parties in the City of Bristol? And is it not rather presumptuous that he should interfere with the wishes of that city?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I really think the hon. Member cannot have listened to what I have said.

Mr. Alpass: Mr. Alpass rose——

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Will the hon. Member please sit down?

Mr. Alpass: I happen to be an elector in Bristol——

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Really, Mr. Beaumont, I must be able to get on with my speech. I am not questioning whether the political parties wanted this, that or anything else, or whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied. Of course people are never satisfied until they have got as much as possible. What I am concerned with is the principle on which His Majesty's Government worked in approaching this problem. That is the case I am putting up, not the local case or the case of political parties. I have given the Committee the figures for the constituencies as they stand at the moment in Bristol, and I claim that those figures do not show an excessive number in any single one of those constituencies. Now let me give the figures for the surrounding county divisions. My own Division will be 58,900, West Bristol is 59,200, the new Division of North Somer-


set under the Boundary Commission's recommendations will be 59,300, South Bristol is 62,600, and the neighbouring Division in Gloucestershire of Stroud and Thornbury will be 69,300, which is bigger than the largest constituency in Bristol at the present time. On what line of reasoning did his Majesty's Government suddenly discover that constituencies in Bristol of 64,000, 67,000, 63,000, 62,000 and 59,000, were too big, but accepted the recommendation of the Boundary Commission that the neighbouring county division of Thornbury and Stroud covering a big area was not too big at 69,300?

Mr. Alpass: Mr. Alpass rose——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Alpass: I represent Thornbury; I have a right to ask——

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Member has not. I am not concerned, and I say it again to the hon. Member for Thornbury as it is, and as it will not be ever again——

Mr. Alpass: It will be much safer.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am not concerned with political feelings or the feelings of the people of Bristol on this matter. All I am concerned with is to ask the Home Secretary on what principle did they ask the Boundary Commission to suggest another seat for Bristol? Perhaps I put it wrongly. On what principle did the Home Secretary go to the Boundary Commission and say, "What about this Bristol seat? How is it to be done?" His argument is completely inexplicable. I hope, if there is any sincerity, and the Government can possibly prove their sincerity in this matter, that, for the sake of Parliament, they will do so before the end of this Debate.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: I endeavoured to raise a point this afternoon when the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), was on his feet but, unfortunately, he did not give way, although it was noticeable that while my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was making his statement the Leader of the Opposition insisted upon interrupting repeatedly, and my right hon. Friend repeatedly gave way. The point I wished

to raise, arising out of the statement which was made by the Leader of the Opposition, related to the proper representation of a number of boroughs, certain of them in the County of London area, which previously had two Members and still have two Members, but which, under the earlier recommendations of the Boundary Commission, would have their representation reduced from two to one, leaving one Member to represent a total electorate of well over 80,000 electors. In some cases the total electorate in such boroughs will reach nearly 90,000. An electorate of 90,000, I presume, represents, on the average, a total population of something like 200,000, or probably even 250,000—a quarter of a million people. Although it is usual to relate the representation of a Member in regard to his constituency to the total number of electors in the constituency, we should not lose sight of the fact that he represents not only actual electors, but the interests of all the inhabitants of this constituency.
7.45 P.m.
The Leader of the Opposition said that my right hon. Friend's case was pitifully simple. I think the general impression was gained—and I believe I am speaking at least for hon. Members on this side of the Committee—that the statement of the Leader of the Opposition was not only pitifully simple, but simply pitiful. The purpose of a Bill of this kind is to secure appropriate representation of the people of this country in this Chamber. Has it ever been argued that there is something wholly sacrosanct in some particular number of Members of Parliament? Is it claimed that 591 Members, the figure it is now sought to amend to 613 Members, is absolutely ideal for the perfect and complete representation of the electors in the House of Commons? Even the memories of hon. Members on the Opposition benches will enable them to realise that the total number of Members sitting in this Chamber has varied from time to time within quite recent years, and indeed, under successive Tory Governments. It will probably be found that the total number of Members has varied when circumstances have given rise to reconsideration of the representation of the people.
We claim, and I think rightly, that to argue that there is something final in a


particular number of Members is simply ridiculous. There is nothing final in the figure of 613. Our experience during recent years has clearly indicated that there is a change in the spread of population in different parts of the country which is going on continuously. If it is right that some hon. Members on the other side of the Committee, as well as some on this side, should represent constituencies which have little more than 40,000 electors, has not a borough like Battersea, with a total electorate of more than 82,000, the right to claim that they should have more than one Member, in order to have proper and effective representation? There is nothing final in the total number of Members to be elected to this House. What must be sought for is not some ideal, unalterable number, but effective, appropriate representation. His Majesty's Government are doing the right thing in altering the number previously fixed at 591 to 613 to enable proper representation of the constituencies which are set out in the White Paper.
There is another point which springs to the mind of hon. Members listening to a Debate of this kind, and especially to the type of contribution which we have heard from the Opposition benches today. I refer to their repeated reference to the Boundary Commission as if that Commission must have the last word about any recommendations and the putting into effect of those recommendations. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear] One hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear," but there have been previous Commissions in the history of this country, the findings of which were not attended to by Tory Governments in the years between the two wars with such interest as apparently they wish to attach to the findings of the Boundary Commission on this occasion. I remember, for example, Commissions which were called the Samuel Commission and the Sankey Commission which made reports on the coal industry, but hon. Members who then formed part of Tory Governments in the years between the wars——

Mr. Michael Astor: On a point of Order. Is this really in Order or relevant?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bowles): Having regard to the width of the Debate already, all that has been said must be regarded as relevant.

Mr. Thomas: I am making a comparison which is relevant. The difficulty of hon. Members lies in the fact that it is painful to them to have to listen to such comparisons because they know that they have been guilty of ignoring findings relating to fundamental interests and industries of this country which have been reached by commissions set up by themselves. It is not correct that the findings of any Commission must inevitably be accepted by any Government, even if that Government set up the Commission. A Commission is set up not to lay down hard-and-fast lines of legislation, but to make recommendations to the body which is responsible for legislation, namely, the House of Commons and the Government. Therefore, it can rightly be claimed that His Majesty's Government have taken the right line in dealing with the Boundary Commission's Report in the way proposed in the Representation of the People Bill. The electors of this country are entitled to be properly represented in this House. Some attempt must be made to equalise the representation in relation to the total number of the electorate and the total number of Members. In such a system of area representation it is impossible to have exact equality of representation, but the Government are doing the right thing in seeking to give, as far as possible, effective representation for the whole area of the country.
In any case, I am satisfied that these proposals for increased representation for areas which are populated to the extent of either 80,000 or 90,000 electors, and where originally it was suggested the representation should be merely by one Member, and which are now to be represented by two Members, will give general satisfaction to the inhabitants of those areas. The Government are doing the right thing towards securing the more equal representation of the people by putting forward these Amendments. Opposition Members are really afraid that this wider representation of the people will be to their political detriment. I consider that to be the only feeling which has actuated them in bringing forward their opposition to this proposal by the Government. I am convinced that the electors throughout the country, and especially the electors in the constituencies affected will welcome this measure of equity and will thank the Government for doing the right thing by them.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I cannot help feeling that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) has failed to appreciate the real point which we on this side of the Committee are making. We are not at the moment primarily discussing the advantages to the constituents of the various constituencies which are affected, although I shall come to that. Nor are we talking about a sacrosanct number of Members in this House. The main objection that we put forward is to the method which the Home Secretary has adopted, the method of starting with one Boundary Commission, and, if that is unacceptable, having another and, if that is unacceptable, bringing forward Amendments at the last moment.
I represent a constituency in Sheffield which is affected. At the present time Sheffield has seven seats, and most people in Sheffield were disappointed when they found that under the terms of the Boundary Commission's recommendations they were to have only six seats. If, by a proper method, it could have been brought about, I am certain that everyone would have been glad and proud to have the seven seats back. From the point of view of the hon. Member for the Park Division (Mr. Burden), who would have lost his seat, I am glad that he will now, under the proposed redistribution, come back again. I am not sure that after the great services he has rendered over a number of years he might not have been found a seat in another place.

Mr. David Jones: So might the hon. Member.

Mr. Roberts: I have to disclose an interest in regard to my particular division because under the present Amendment my division is wiped out, and the name of Ecclesall disappears. We have had a previous reference to Birmingham to the effect that where Conservative or other seats have been wiped out, it is because of the smallness of the area or the number of constituents. This cannot be said in this instance, and I suggest that there is an onus upon the Government to show that there is not a political implication.
I wish to address to the Home Secretary an argument upon this point which was made by the hon. Lady the Member for North-East Leeds (Miss Bacon). I want to support what she said in that respect. She said that as far as people in Leeds

were concerned, they did not object to the reduction of seats when they saw what was happening in other cities round about. That might fairly be said from the point of view of Sheffield. I want to put to the Home Secretary the appeal which the hon. Lady made. Neither in the speech of the Home Secretary nor in that of the Leader of the House has any mention been made, assuming that this principle is carried in the Committee tonight, of how there can be any revision of small differences which may arise between one boundary area and another. Under the Boundary Commission's arrangement, that was possible. There has been some dispute about Birmingham. It was possible to make application to the Boundary Commission. Here the Government say "You must take this or leave it." There is no question of discussing any small amendment even though everyone in the city may be agreed, unless we do it in this Committee. This Committee is not a place in which to try to thresh out minor details. I believe the right hon. Gentleman said in his speech that he was not prepared to deal with minor differences himself.
8.0 p.m.
I support the argument employed by the hon. Member for North-East Leeds that where a constituency organisation is affected, such as mine, and where the three-way pull appears, and it can be shown that there are geographical difficulties which could easily be overcome, representations to that effect, if the Home Secretary allows them, should be made to the Boundary Commission. But no suggestion of that sort has been made at all. I put to the Home Secretary the case of my constituency of Ecclesall. The Home Secretary agrees that there is no political motive behind this case. Ecclesall has been represented in this House by my grandfather, my father, and now, however inadequately, by myself—three generations representing one constituency with one name.

Mr. Alpass: Then it is about time there was a change.

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Member may think so; perhaps there are even some people in Sheffield who also think that way, but is it political or is it not? If it is not, and if it can be shown that a constituency of that kind has built up a certain mutual respect and trust, of which I personally, am very proud, and if there


is no reason for the name to be taken away, then it seems to me most extraordinary that the Home Secretary should not allow such an amendment to be made.
I cannot go into details here—it would not be proper to do so—but there is a small alteration which might well be made and which might well be agreed by everybody. If that is so, is there no method by which the Home Secretary can do it except by coming to this Committee and producing maps showing how one part is cut off from another, and how upset are the geographical conditions? I hope that whoever is going to reply will say that, once the principle has been accepted, some machinery will be set up whereby individual constituencies, or the proper organisations in individual constituencies, can approach the Boundary Commission which has drawn up these lines behind the scenes. If that is not so, and if it is possible, as in my case, for a constituency to be torn apart, to be pulled three ways and for the name and the traditions behind it to disappear, it must surely suggest to the people of Sheffield that there is some political motive behind it.
The hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) said just now that it is about time a tradition of that kind was broken. Is that the political implication behind it, or is it not? If it is, I am convinced that down the years the resentment felt by politically-minded people in Sheffield will be kept alive. It seems to me that this is the wrong way to deal with the two-party system. Are we really going to come down to bickering of this kind, are hon. Members opposite to tear apart the great stronghold of Conservatism in Sheffield, and is no account to be taken of the resentment and rankling that will be caused? It seems to be debasing the whole tradition of our two-party system.
I want the Home Secretary to consider, once the principle has been agreed by this Committee, whether it is not possible for this dictatorial boundary drawing to be subject to some form of reasonable arbitration when it can be shown that advantages lie that way. I hope that the Government will bear this in mind. We object to the method in which this has been done. I believe that, generally speaking, the people of Sheffield would prefer to have seven seats, because they realise the dignity of it, but let it be done in a proper constitutional manner. If it is not, then I can assure the right hon.

Gentleman that the political resentment he will raise will not be something which he can easily knock down.

Mr. W. D. Griffiths: Having listened to most of the speeches made by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, I gather that, in general, they are opposed to this Amendment, an objection which, if sustained by the Committee, would deny to nine of the greatest cities in the country their unanimous desire to have another seat. I hope that this attitude of the Conservative Party will be widely noted by all sections of the communities in those nine cities. They will undoubtedly regard this as being an unwarranted blow to their civic pride. The attitude of the Opposition will, I am sure, seem particularly strange to the Manchester Conservative and Unionist Association because we who are Members of the Labour Party in the City of Manchester consulted with members of the Conservative Party in that City and they were all agreed that the city's needs could only be met by the Government granting it an extra seat. Indeed, the hon. and gallant Member for Withington (Squadron-Leader Fleming) himself supported an Amendment in the House approving the principle which the Home Secretary has conceded, although it is perfectly true that, at a later stage, the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman disappeared from the Order Paper.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: I think the hon. Member will agree that the Home Secretary's Amendment is slightly different from the one placed on the Order Paper by the hon. Member for Clayton (Mr. H. Thorneycroft). I agreed to the nine seats, but not to the demarcation.

Mr. Griffiths: I am glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman still shows such a desire to try to carry out the wishes of what one might call a sort of local conception of democracy, and has not been carried away by the rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition today, who, apparently, does not regard the City of Manchester with such high esteem as does the hon. and gallant Gentleman. However, the position has now changed, so that I and my Labour colleagues in the city thought that, on this occasion, we might put in a word in support of the Home Secretary's Amendment, and, indeed, be "cryptos" —as we are sometimes accused of being—


of a different variety and not only sustain the wishes of the Labour Party, but also support the Unionist Association on this occasion. Therefore, on behalf of all parties, we say that we have great pleasure in supporting this Amendment because we think it meets the need of one of the outstanding cities of the North of England.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I feel strongly about this Amendment. We have heard various hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy), basing their reasons for supporting this Amendment upon the particular view of their own constituency. It is possibly not without some significance, although it was not mentioned by the hon. Member for East Bradford, that another Bradford Member is also chairman of the Parliamentary Socialist Party and has every opportunity of letting the Government know his views on the subject. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) pointed out, that opportunity has been denied to other hon. Members, who may feel aggrieved because they have not proper representation.
I feel that, in moving this Amendment after the Second Reading Debate, in which no mention was made that such a major change was going to take place, the Government are really ill advised. In fact, I would call it an extremely shabby and questionable performance. So far as I have understood it, it has long been the accepted practice of all parties in this Committee that electoral reform, as indeed any constitutional reform, goes forward as far as possible by consultation and agreement between all the major parties. As we all know, the method which is usually adopted is either that of an all-party conference under Mr. Speaker or some impartial chairman, or else the setting up of an impartial commission whose recommendations as a whole are generally accepted when they are brought forward, and if they are to be departed from, they are not departed from except by consultation or agreement between the political parties.
I do not think anyone on this side of the Committee pretends for one moment that the recommendations of the Boundary Commission are in any way sacrosanct or that alterations cannot be made by Parliament. What we do sug-

gest is that if major alterations are to be made by Parliament, we should try as far as possible to carry them out by consultation and, if possible, by agreement between the two parties before they are forced through Parliament by means of a Parliamentary majority. I say in all seriousness to the hon. Member for Moss Side (Mr. W. D. Griffiths) and to other hon. Members that they should consider what will ultimately be the consequences of this growing practice of trying to change the constitution or the electoral constituencies in this country in this way by unilateral action—by one party.

Mr. W. D. Griffiths: Surely, the hon. Gentleman does not claim that it is unilateral action or action by one party when representations from all parties are made from all these great cities to the Home Secretary?

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I can only say that it is the first I have ever heard about consultations having taken place between the Home Secretary and this side of the Committee about these alterations which are to be made—and very big alterations they are. To most of my hon. Friends it came as a surprise when the first thing we saw about these alterations was in the Sunday newspapers not so very long ago. It is quite true the party opposite may have a large majority today and, may be the Attorney-General said, "the masters now," but I ask them to consider that this may not always be the case. Today, now that they have to keep power with a large majority, they are what might be called a middle party, in much the same position as the Liberal Party after their great victory in 1906. All political history goes to show that the middle party with two flanks open, ultimately becomes extinguished. It may be a slow and lingering death, but any military tactician knows that it is not possible to go on fighting indefinitely with one's flanks exposed.
I believe that the majority of the hon. Members opposite are good democrats at heart, but I ask them seriously to consider what may be the danger of making constitutional changes or changes in the representation in Parliament by unilateral action, without consultation and, if possible, agreement with the other parties. I believe that this Amendment should be rejected. It should be rejected, first of all —and this argument should appeal to


hon. Members opposite—because it denies the principle that electoral change should, in the first place, be brought about after consultation and, if possible, agreement with other parties, including minority parties, in the State. I cannot help feeling that this proposal has been brought forward by the Government deliberately with a view to enhancing their own political position in the country.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Fred Marshall: I would not have intervened except for the speech of the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts). I listened to parts of his speech in rather a critical mood, but there was one part with which I agree. He said first that he did not agree with the measures that had been adopted to bring about this redistribution. Personally, I think the Boundary Commission have done a very fine job of work. If one takes the case of a great city like Sheffield, and considers the complexity of its municipal wards, one must agree that the Boundary Commission have done a very fine job of work in grouping those wards into various divisions. In that process, of course, some wards would inevitably be allocated to one division and some to another.
The hon. Member for Ecclesall protested that the Boundary Commission have torn up—those were his words—a great Tory stronghold in the City of Sheffield. I deny that. I say that the Boundary Commission, in their allocation of the Sheffield seats, although they have made one or two mistakes, have not torn up a great Tory stronghold. They have certainly taken the name of Ecclesall from the hon. Member, and propose to give him another very good ward. As a matter of fact, he will be given a cast-iron Tory seat. He will certainly come up against some poor neighbours, and possibly he does not like that, but, on the whole, I think the hon. Member will be returned again to Parliament with a similar majority to that which he had at the last Election. Therefore, I do not understand his grievance. It seems to me that his grievance, if he has any, is that it is proposed to change the name from the "Ecclesall" Division of Sheffield to the "Heeley" Division of Sheffield. Apparently he does not like that, because there are family traditions embedded in the constituency. His grandfather and

his distinguished father represented it, and now he represents it. All I would say on that point is that continual representation does not confer upon anybody a right of ownership in these matters.
It may do the hon. Member good to come up against some of the more proletarian districts in the city, and I think it will improve his mind. The hon. Member not only wants a cast-iron Conservative seat; he wants it decorated with a very special name. I am sure the hon. Member will agree with me that a city like Sheffield, with its dignity and importance, and in view of the tremendous service which it is recognised it has given to this country, is entitled to seven seats. It has had seven seats for a long time. I confess that I was very perturbed when the first Boundary Commission Report proposed to reduce the seats to six. If that scheme had been put into operation there would have been two or three Labour seats torn to pieces.

Mr. P. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman seems to be trailing his coat somewhat. Is it the Labour Party's idea that if there are differences which can be smoothed out, they should not be smoothed out and that there should be an absolute dictatorial line drawn, with no argument whatsoever? We must be quite clear about this.

Mr. Marshall: I was coming to that. I do not think the hon. Gentleman was present when I commenced my speech. I had already said that on that point I agree with him, but I certainly could not agree with the general tone of his speech. He knows as well as I do that to try to divide a city like Sheffield into seven divisions and to keep the municipal wards intact is a very difficult job. I have had a go at it and I defy the hon. Member to sit down and successfully form these municipal wards into seven divisions of equal strength and equal voting power and keep the same wards as are at present in existence allocated to their respective Parliamentary divisions.

Mr. Roberts: When the hon. Gentleman says "equal strength," does he mean all kept within a thousand, because if so it is impossible? A scheme can quite easily be made, however. Take Birmingham as an example. In Birmingham under the present suggestion there is to be one seat of 47,000 and another of 68,000. It is perfectly simple to get something within that orbit.

Mr. Marshall: I have tried to keep the wards contiguous and my colleagues have tried, experimentally, of course, and we have found that certain divisions in Sheffield went down almost as low as 40,000 by trying to keep the municipal wards contiguous in the Parliamentary divisions. I think the Boundary Commission had a very complicated task to undertake and that they have done it pretty well.
I want to come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Ecclesall. In my own constituency, Brightside, they have taken a ward pretty well in the centre of my division away from me and given me another at the North End of the City. In short, I have to jump over Attercliffe to get to this particular ward. If I were to exchange that ward with Attercliffe, I should not disturb the political balance and the voting strength would be about the same. It is on these matters that we should be able to appeal to the Boundary Commission, and I propose to do so at a later date.

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Member cannot.

Mr. Marshall: I would not upset the whole show now. I think that from the organisational point of view, however, some improvement can be made. I am not speaking for the hon. Member's division, Ecclesall; I am speaking only for my own. On the whole, I think the Government have done a very fine piece of work in recognising these great county boroughs, these boroughs which have given such splendid service to this country during two wars; some of them have been the centre of great munitions industries and they have sent men to the House of Commons and into local government who have done very great service. I think they are entitled to the extra seats given to them by this proposal and I thoroughly support the Government.

Mr. Frank Byers: I have listened to this Debate, and I want to declare quite frankly that, on the merits of the case, I am in favour of the increase in the number of constituencies and the reduction in the number of electors. I think the Home Secretary will bear me out that as long ago as 1946 I said that it might be necessary to have up to 20 seats more than was at first suggested by the Boundary Commission in order to get something like parity within the scheme. I believe

that on the merits there is an extraordinary good case to be made for reducing these large constituencies, and it is on the merits that I propose to cast my vote tonight.
I would, however, like to make an appeal to the Home Secretary to this effect: I feel that throughout the discussions on the Bill an atmosphere has been created whereby we are going to lose that traditional idea that these matters should be done by agreement wherever possible, and I feel that that is an important point of principle which should be established, if we can possibly establish it. I, therefore, suggest to the Home Secretary that it would have been much better if, before he had taken consultation with the Boundary Commission, he had consulted through the usual channels as he did in December, 1946. I do not hold that against him, but if he could say a few words on that point—that it is his intention and the intention of the Government to seek to obtain agreeement wherever possible—I feel that the atmosphere of this Debate in future weeks may be a lot better. For one thing, I do not wish to see a suggestion that the party in power is using its position for party advantage, because it is damaging that that suggestion should be made.
I have had suggestions made to me from Manchester to the effect that the scheme put forward by the Home Secretary is purely a Labour Party scheme which is only to the advantage of the Labour Party. I do not comment on that, but I say that it is damaging in the country if that sort of thing is said. No doubt the Home Secretary feels that he has adequately answered that case, but I would like to see him a little more forthcoming and to establish the principle that, wherever possible, we shall seek to obtain agreement before we change what might be termed the rules of party politics.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: I rise merely to deal with a matter concerning Manchester which has been raised in the Committee. It has been pointed out that, so far as the Manchester divisions are concerned, there was a certain amount of discussion between the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party—I believe—and the Labour Party. I am not quite sure about the Liberal Party.

Mr. Byers: Yes, they were in it.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: There were two points for discussion—the increase of one in the number of seats and the method of breaking up the existing seats into those nine. That was done within the ambit of the terms of reference of the Boundary Commission and, as has been pointed out, it was agreed between the parties in Manchester that there should be nine seats and that my division, for example, should be broken up, not into three as now, but into two parts. That is a very big difference.
I think I should explain to the Committee that there are three well-marked wards in my division. Two of them were to be left—proposals coming from Manchester a few weeks ago—in the new Withington division—two well-defined wards—and the other was going into a new division entirely, another division in Cheshire. To my mind, that was a very shrewd demarcation for the new division and the old division. It served very well the political make-up of Manchester. This new proposal is quite different. Again, take my division, and the reason I take my own case is not because it is my division, but it is the biggest in Manchester and the most liable to be broken up. The idea now is to take those three wards apart entirely. I do not object to that on any ground whatever. My Labour colleagues tell me all the three new divisions will be Tory strongholds, but they forget that my division never was a Tory stronghold; my predecessor, 16 years ago, was a Liberal, so I pay no attention to that.
If we are going to make a division of a city like Manchester, however, I agree that the first thing is that the matter should be discussed between the parties concerned. That was done. It should be put to the headquarters of those parties and that, I am now told, was not done by my own party and that will explain why I took the line I did take. I believe that where we have leaders in a party they should lead, and I took the advice of my leader, and that is why I took my name from the Amendment put down by the hon. Member for Clayton (Mr. H. Thorneycroft). There is nothing wrong in that, I am sure.
Coming back to this new arrangement, so far as I know, there never was any discussion between the leaders of the party on this new arrangement, so far as Manchester is concerned. It came to me in Manchester last week-end as a bombshell;

I never heard of it from my own party or from any of my Labour colleagues in Manchester, with whom I am quite friendly. So far as I can understand, there has been no agreement with regard to this new conception of the Manchester representation in the House of Commons. On that point alone, I object to what is being done, and I shall take the opportunity of voting against the Amendment, although I want nine divisions, because I want the job to be done properly.

8.30 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I intervene for but a few minutes to refer to the situation created in Birmingham. I am glad to see the hon. Member for the Sparkbrook division (Mr. Shurmer) present, because he is the embodiment of the genius of the Labour Party in Birmingham, and I am particularly anxious to say something to console him for his past misdirected life.
On the whole, I think that there is not much to complain about with regard to the Birmingham divisions, but I do wish to ask the Home Secretary whether the new proposals in the Amendments to the Schedule represent the decisions or recommendations of the Boundary Commission.

Mr. Ede: indicated assent.

Sir P. Hannon: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, because certainly that eases my mind a good deal. I was under the impression, perhaps quite wrongly, that the decision of the Home Secretary, in putting down the Amendments in the context in which they appeared on the Order Paper, was due to the influence exercised by the hon. Member for Sparkbrook and his colleagues in making approaches to the Home Secretary that modifications of the kind suggested would have a beneficent effect upon the fortunes of the Socialist Party in Birmingham.

Mr. Shurmer: We would not do such a thing.

Sir P. Hannon: As a matter of fact, we are the friendliest community under the sun, and I think the hon. Member will agree that when we first had the Report of the Boundary Commission there was not very much difference of opinion amongst us, except that it was suggested that there was room for an additional seat in an area which is a rapidly growing part of our great city, and where we are


anxious for adequate representation. I make that concession.
In interrupting the hon. Member for the Ladywood division (Mr. Yates) earlier, if I said anything to indicate that we were unsettled about the rearrangement of the wards, it was perhaps rather like Mark Twain's obituary notice—slightly exaggerated. The only fault we in Birmingham find in the rearrangement of the wards is that certain wards—for example, some of the Deritend and Duddeston wards—are being placed in other divisions. In Birmingham, we had an arrangement of wards which fitted precisely, and almost mathematically, into our Parliamentary constituencies. These are now being disturbed, and I have no doubt that the disturbance to which the Home Secretary desires to give effect may have some advantage, at all events for the Labour Party. But I do not complain on that score, although I think that in Birmingham it will introduce certain inconveniences, and will create difficulties in the arrangement of wards within constituencies. I sympathise with the hon. Member for the Deritend division (Mr. Longden), because the ancient name of Deritend is being wiped off the map. I make no complaint of the name Moseley division being wiped off the map, because the destinies of Moseley and myself are just about tied together.

Mr. Byers: Which Moseley?

Sir P. Hannon: Moseley, Birmingham.

Mr. Byers: Not Oswald?

Sir P. Hannon: There is only one Moseley that I know which is at all worthy of consideration. I believe there is a Moseley in a remote corner of Manchester, which is sometimes heard of in the Committee. I am bound to say that, on the whole, the Home Secretary has done a first-class piece of work in the presentation of the Schedule. I should be the last person in the world to criticise the actions of the Home Secretary. I have known him a great many years, and, although we have not agreed very much on matters of public policy and political outlook, I have always regarded him as a perfectly fair and just exponent of the rights and privileges of Members in the House of Commons. Therefore, while I am prepared to criticise, and perhaps to put down an Amendment to his Amendment with regard to the new boundaries

of these constituencies, and the inclusion of certain wards which I think will make a substantial change in the political structure of Birmingham, I acknowledge the admirable work he has done. I am quite certain that he has done his best to see that there is justice and fair play to all those interested and concerned.

Brigadier Peto: No.

Sir P. Hannon: I am bound to say that. After all, even though I sit on this side of the Committee, and even though I have been described as an old hardened Tory, I can see some virtues, even in the worst Socialists on the other side—without including the Home Secretary in that category, because he is on a much higher level, and I should wish to say the kindest things possible about him.
This is a big departure. If we proceed at the present rate of progress we shall be through this Bill by the month of June or so. I am sure the desire of everybody is that representation should be fair and equal in this House of Commons, and the whole world outside will see that, although we are discussing these matters in the midst of the most difficult situation in which the world has been placed, we are doing it honestly and fairly, with full regard for the justice of the situation.

Mr. Osbert Peake: The Committee will have gathered from that last speech that Birmingham, at any rate, is well pleased at securing one more Member than was the intention of the Boundary Commission.

Mr. Shurmer: And another safe Tory seat.

Mr. Peake: I will accept the hon. Member's word for it. That, of course, accounts all the more for the pleasure of my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon).
I desire to return from local considerations to the main principle involved in this Amendment. It has been said, time and again—I think some hon. Members opposite may be getting a little tired of hearing it—that this proposal to add 22 to the number of seats laid down in the Schedule to the 1944 Act constitutes a breach of the agreement reached in the Speaker's Conference of 1944. If hon. Members look at the sixth resolution of the Report of the Speaker's Conference of 22nd May, 1944, they will see there set out that it was unanimously agreed


that the number of Members for Great Britain should be not substantially more or less than 591, and that out of that number at least 35 should be given to Wales and 71 to Scotland; that is to say, those who sat on the Speaker's Conference—including the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has just left the Chamber, although I see we have the Minister of National Insurance still with us, who at that time agreed, quite naturally, that Wales should be over-represented——

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): Adequately represented.

Mr. Peake: —over-represented, on the basis of electorate and of population. Today, the Home Secretary made some play with the fact that England was underrepresented on the basis laid down and agreed to in the Speaker's Conference. The Lord President told us today that on many occasions he had disposed completely of this argument that there had been a breach of faith of the agreement reached in the Speaker's Conference. He seemed to be quite satisfied upon that point, But neither he nor the Home Secretary has ever given any adequate explanation of the speech made by the Home Secretary on 21st November, 1945, during the Second Reading of the Elections and jurors Bill. The right hon. Gentleman then stated, regarding an Amendment complaining that the Speaker's Conference recommendations were not being carried out, that:
We regard ourselves as bound during the lifetime of the present Parliament to submit to the House the necessary legislation to give effect to these recommendations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1945; Vol. 416, c. 453.]
That was said in the present Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman, in winding up the Debate a week ago, and attempting to explain how he came to use those words, said:
My own view is that that phrase referred to the recommendations of the three bodies with which I should have to deal. They were the Speaker's Conference, the Carr Committee and the Committee which I was appointing about that time which was presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver)."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1948; Vol. 448, C. 2011–12.]
It is rather hard for me to believe that the right hon. Gentleman, in saying that the Government regard themselves
as bound during the lifetime of the present Parliament to submit to the House the neces-

sary legislation to give effect to these recommendations,
was referring compendiously to three things: first, the Report of a Speaker's Conference which had been published two years before and the recommendations of which were well known; secondly, and at the same time, the Report of the Carr Committee, which was at that time about half way through its labours and whose recommendations the right hon. Gentleman had never seen; and thirdly—included in this omnibus phrase apparently—the Report of the Committee which he was setting up on that very day—21st November, 1945—to be presided over by the hon. Gentleman who was at that time Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, but who has since been the victim of one of the many purges of junior Ministers.
How can one really believe that the right hon. Gentleman meant that the Government regarded themselves as bound to carry out a Committee's recomendations, which they had not seen, and, in another case, of a Committee which had not at that time begun to sit? Is it not perfectly clear that the only thing the right hon. Gentleman had in his mind at that time were the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference which had been published two years before?—important matters which were well known to all hon. Members. I hope that either the Lord President or the Home Secretary will apply himself seriously to this statement which the right hon. Gentleman made four months after he became Home Secretary in the present Government, that the Government felt themselves
bound … to submit the necessary legislation to give effect to these recommendations,
that is to say, the recommendations of this Speaker's Conference. Secondly, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Lord President has ever addressed himself to that most damaging admission of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland during the Second Reading Debate—the frightful admission of the right hon. Gentleman that the agreement reached in the Speaker's Conference was broken by the Conservatives in November, 1946, when a Conservative Member was returned for the Scottish Universities. That admission has never since been mentioned from the Front Bench.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bowles): I know that the Debate has been very wide, but this issue has been discussed over and over again. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was going to leave local matters and come to the national aspect of the matter. Hon. Members will agree that we have had this Debate over and over again on the question of alleged breach of faith. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would confine his remarks to the subject under discussion.

Mr. Peake: I had, in fact, just come to the conclusion of my argument on that part of the case. I was going on to say that, quite apart from its being a breach of the agreement reached in the Speaker's Conference, it was a breach of a new agreement reached in the present Parliament. In November, 1946, the right hon. Gentleman came to the House with proposals to alter the terms of reference of the Boundary Commission. The idea was that the original terms of reference were too narrow, that the 25 per cent. limit on either side of the quota compelled the Commission to cut across local government boundaries, that the Commission were unable to make constituencies as large as they would wish, and that the 25 per cent. above the quota compelled the Commission to keep all the constituencies below a figure of about 74,000 electors.
8.45 p.m.
There was an all-party discussion, in which I participated, and it was agreed that this 25 per cent. limit should be swept away, which would enable the Boundary Commissioners to propose constituencies larger than 74,000, and enable them to prepare what would be in all respects a more satisfactory scheme of redistribution. At the conference which took place at that time, this question of the number of Members was fully discussed. The question was taken up as to whether it would not be easier for the Commissioners to make a satisfactory scheme if they were permitted to go beyond the figure of 591. No suggestion came from the Home Secretary at that time, in any of the proposals he put forward to the House in his Bill, that it was necessary to increase that number, for the simple reason that we all thought that some reasonable, small increase in the number could be made without contra-

vening the sense and spirit of the words "not substantially more than 591."
The question I want someone to answer is the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). If it was thought necessary and wise to consult all parties in 1946 about amendment of the terms of reference of the Commission, why was it not thought necessary on this occasion to have consultation regarding the proposal to create 17 new constituencies, which is a departure from the recommendations of the Commission to a substantial and major degree? I really do not know what is the answer to that question. It seems to us that this whole business has been carried out in a hole-and-corner manner.
Let us look at the dates concerned in this matter. The Commission reported, in the case of England, on 24th October—the Reports for other parts of the Kingdom came out earlier. The Bill was not printed until 29th January—that is three months later. The right hon. Gentleman had three months in which to consider whether he should embody the proposals of the Commission in the Schedule to the Bill. Apparently three months' thought and reflection convinced him that the Report of the Boundary Commission was a good one, and that it was right and proper to put it in the Schedule to the Bill.
We then had the Second Reading of the Bill on 17th February—more than a month ago. It was not until 19th March, after we had disposed of the Amendments relating to the universities and to the City of London, that this new outrage appeared on the Order Paper. It took the right hon. Gentleman three months to decide to adopt the Report of the Boundary Commission and put it into the Bill, but it seems to have taken only one month since the Second Reading of the Bill to decide to tear up the Report and to throw it over. We are told, in regard to the eight big boroughs, that the plan for their subdivision was embodied in a letter sent by the Commission to the right hon. Gentleman on 9th October, 1947. The right hon. Gentleman, when I challenged him this afternoon, did not seem to know the date of the letter. He did not know whether it was before or after the Commission had made their final Report, but he did become aware, during the proceedings, that this letter was apparently dated


a fortnight before the Report of the Commission.

Mr. Ede: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "apparently dated"? I had the document here, and if the right hon. Gentleman thought that I was misreading the date, he should have challenged me then.

Mr. Peake: I am not challenging the veracity of the right hon. Gentleman. Those Members who were here earlier heard me ask the right hon. Gentleman when this letter was sent, and the only answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave me then was that it was sent three or four months ago. The right hon. Gentleman did not know, or apparently know, or remember, what was the date of the letter. I thought he said 11th October, but he now says that it was 9th October. All I am suggesting is that the House and the Committee might have been allowed to see this letter because apparently a fortnight before the final Report of the Commissioners, the proposal had been discussed—on whose initiative we do not know—for a sub-division of these eight big boroughs.

Mr. Ede: I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to get his facts wrong, and build up a case on that. There was no discussion. The letter came to me without being sought, or my knowing that it was coming.

Mr. Peake: I should have thought that this letter might very well have been embodied in some way as an annexe to the Report of the Commissioners, because the Commissioners' Report, paragraph 15, discusses at length this proposal to split the eight big boroughs and, in the end, quite emphatically rejects it. It seems curious that the Commissioners, on 24th October, emphatically rejected the proposal to split the eight big boroughs when it appears that a fortnight earlier they sent a letter to the Home Secretary saying what they would have done with the boroughs if they had decided to do something quite opposite to the terms of their final Report.

Mr. Ede: That Report of the Boundary Commissioners is a Report without a word or syllable being added as a result of any exchange between me and them as to its contents. If they had wanted to insert the letter as an annexe it was their duty, not mine. What would have been said

if I had taken the Commissioner's Report, and added an annexe of my own which they did not put down?

Mr. Peake: I am not at all suggesting that. Would the right hon. Gentleman make this point quite clear? Was this letter of 9th October a letter from the Commission as a Commission, or from one or more members of the Commission?

Mr. Ede: I read the letter this afternoon, and perhaps it would be helpful if I re-read it now. It is as follows:

"9th October, 1947,

1, Brick Court,

Temple,

London, E C.4.

Dear Home Secretary,

As you will see from the Report of the Boundary Commission for England it was decided for the reasons set out in it that eight boroughs with electorates of between 80,000 and 88,000 should not be divided. The Report is not yet signed, and it may be a few days before it is ready to send, although it is complete. It was thought, however, that it might be as well if we did prepare a scheme for division so that if, in any event, Parliament were to decide on revision, matters would not be delayed.

This scheme is not recommended by us and is, therefore, not made part of the Schedule, but I have been authorised to send it unofficially to you for the above reason. It is what we should have put into the Schedule had we decided to divide these constituencies.

Yours faithfully,

Roland Burrows."

Mr. Butcher: On a point of Order. The letter which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has just read is a State paper, and that being so, ought it not to have been laid on the Table of the House?

The Temporary Chairman: If a Minister quotes from a paper, or a State paper, in the House, that paper should be laid on the Table, but we are not in the House now; we are in Committee.

Mr. Ede: I have not tried to conceal this letter at all. This matter was raised earlier this afternoon, and I am quite sure that no hon. Gentleman would like to lay his hand on his heart and say the exact date on which he received some letter. I took advantage of a slight interruption in the proceedings to have the letter fetched, and as soon as the Committee resumed, I read it to the House. I am not attempting to conceal it in any way.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the matter of the eight big boroughs, I think that the position is now perfectly clear. My only regret is that when this Amendment appeared on the Order Paper last week, accompanied by a White Paper, at that time this letter was not published in order to indicate to us that the Commission, functioning as a Commission, although I think in their letter they said that they were writing unofficially, had approved this method of dividing these eight big boroughs. [Interruption.] I am not saying that they were recommending it. I said that if subsequently it should be decided to vary the recommendations, this was the precise method chosen for dividing the eight big boroughs. I think that it was a pity that when the Government published the White Paper they did not append to it the statement that this was the, means suggested by the Commission for dividing these eight boroughs.
I want to pass now to the question of the nine cities. In regard to the addition of a seat to each of the nine cities, we appear to be confronted with a different situation. The Commission had, on 24th October, completed the statutory task laid upon it by the Act of 1944, and it was not empowered, after it had discharged its task under Section 3 of the Act in regard to the initial Report, to take any further action in the matter of redistribution for a period of three years at the least or seven years at the most. It was, therefore, incapable of acting as a Commission at the time that this proposal to add a seat to each of the nine cities was laid before it. No one in this Committee knows, except the Home Secretary and his colleagues on the Front Bench opposite, at what date it was decided to add a seat to each of these nine cities, and at what date that proposal was passed unofficially to the members of the Boundary Commission. One thing is clear, and that is that the Commission, as a Commission, were incapable of acting in this matter at any date after 24th October last. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman can give the Committee an indication of the date when it was decided to add a seat to each of these nine cities and on what date that matter was referred unofficially, as I understand it has been, to individual members of the Boundary Commission.
The right hon. Gentleman must himself take full personal responsibility for the boundaries of the 56 separate constituencies which are affected in these nine great cities by the proposals to redistribute the seats within those cities. I say that it is an intolerable thing, and I am confirmed in this by nearly all the speeches to which I have listened from the benches opposite today, including that of my territorial neighbour the hon. Member for North-East Leeds (Miss Bacon), that the boundaries of 56 constituencies should be altered and settled permanently and finally by Ministers—by the Home Secretary in particular—without any possibility of any objection being raised by any body or any local inquiry being held under any circumstances.

9.0 p.m.

Miss Bacon: I tried to make it clear that I understood perfectly that these constituencies had been drawn up by the Boundary Commission. The point I wished to make was that I thought we should be given an opportunity of putting any alternatives to the proposals of the Boundary Commission, not of the Government.

Mr. Peake: What the hon. Lady said confirms my view, that there should have been opportunities for objections to the boundaries of these constituencies and, if necessary, for local inquiries to have been held. It is really intolerable that a right hon. Gentleman on the Government Front Bench should carve out a constituency for myself, or for other hon. Members—[Interruption.] It is perfectly true that the right hon. Gentleman has presented me, personally, with the safest Conservative seat in the North of England, but I say it is a disgraceful thing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is a piece of attempted corruption, of which the right hon. Gentleman ought to be thoroughly ashamed. It is perfectly intolerable that not only the boundaries, but the names of constituencies should be fixed by the right hon. Gentleman. As far as Leeds is concerned, I am appalled at the names he has chosen. Could anything be more appalling than to be called the hon. Member for North Central, or South Central, Leeds? It sounds exactly like a railway company.
I should like to know at what date the right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion, as he told us in his speech this


afternoon, that 17 extra seats were desirable. I should like to know when a communication to this effect in regard to the nine big cities was made to the members of the Boundary Commission. I should like to know why the Opposition, and hon. Members of the Liberal Party, were not informed of this decision, and why they were not consulted. I should like to know what were the secret terms of reference given to these members of the Commission, acting unofficially, and I should like to know where is and what is in their secret report. I should like to know who signed it. Were all the members of the English Commission in this? Did Mr. Speaker have any part or lot in this matter? I hope we shall be told a little more about these secret proceedings.
The Home Secretary does not yet seem to realise whether the Commission were acting in their official capacity, or in an unofficial capacity in this matter. He said in his speech today that it did not occur to him to draw any distinction as to the capacity in which these gentlemen acted. But, of course, it makes all the difference in the world to the House of Commons whether they are receiving the official report of a Commission, established by Act of Parliament, or whether they are merely receiving the advice of three or four gentlemen, acting in an individual capacity, because of their special knowledge of this particular problem. The statutory machinery has been completely evaded by the steps which the Government have taken. There is on the Order Paper an Amendment standing in the names of many hon. Members opposite, to make it obligatory for a public inquiry to be held in the future in any case where any objections are raised—in page 4, line 27, at the end, to add:
(c) Rule 5A shall be amended by inserting at the end of paragraph (1) the words 'In any subsequent review of a Parliamentary Constituency the Boundary Commission shall hold a local public inquiry, if requested to do so by resolution of the local government authority for the area affected.'
In this case there is not only no possibility of making objections, but there is no shadow of a possibility of a local inquiry being held.
What is the real case against the Government? It is not that some of these cases are not arguable upon their merits—of course, it is possible to argue on figures that, let us say, Manchester, or Birming-

ham, is entitled to an extra Member. I may say, in passing, that no party of any kind in Leeds, or Bristol, has ever asked for an additional Member to be granted for those two cities. The case against the Government is that the Government have given way to pressure, and yielded to the temptation of electoral advantage. Back bench Members were, of course, entitled to put down and to argue Amendments to the Schedule. The last people in the House to suggest Amendments to the Schedule are His Majesty's Government themselves, because by so doing they deprive themselves of every moral argument against any amendment, from whatever quarter to the Schedule. It is no longer possible for the right hon. Gentleman to make a case upon the Report of the independent Boundary Commission. Every Member is now entitled to argue upon the merits of his own or of any other constituency.
The Amendment is, to my mind, clear evidence that the Labour Party have not much hope of winning the next General Election upon a fair and equitable distribution, as proposed by the Boundary Commission. No words of mine can really describe the conduct of Ministers in this matter. It would be an understatement to describe these proposals as a gross and shameless act of political jobbery. Let hon. Members be driven once more into the Lobby in support of a breach of an honourable agreement and understanding.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Earlier this afternoon we had a fine display of political invective from the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and from the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). Since then, the Debate has been conducted in language more adequate to the situation with which we are actually dealing. The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has endeavoured to raise the temperature again to the heights sought by his colleagues earlier this afternoon. I am not going to follow that line at all.
This afternoon I made a plain statement to the Committee about the effects of the Amendment and the reasons which actuated the Government in putting it down. I want to deny at once that there is something superior about a few right hon. and hon. Gentlemen meeting in a Committee Room upstairs to talk this thing over rather than putting Amend-


ments on the Paper so that they can be discussed by any hon. Member who cares to take part in the Debate. We are told that the Government should not give way to pressure—of course, if it comes from this side of the Committee. If it comes from the other side of the Committee I suppose giving way is a concession to reason and to argument. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Precisely. Members of the Government are to listen only to what the Opposition say and are to do only what the Opposition want. That is not my doctrine of Parliamentary Government.
I very much doubt whether this Amendment need have been put down at all because I am not sure that 22 is a substantial addition to 591 or that 613 is a substantially higher number than 591, but I thought that it was better that the House should have the opportunity of discussing this scheme as a whole. I think the figure of 613 is not an unreasonable number to have as Members for Great Britain, on the lines of the argument I developed earlier this afternoon. An increase of five seats, which was included in the Commission's Report, was not substantially greater. Nobody objects to that. At which point do hon. Gentlemen say that we have moved so far away from 591 that we have got so big a figure as to constitute a breach of any agreement which may have been reached at the Speaker's Conference?
I do not think there is any need for me to deal any more with the relations between the Boundary Commission and myself with regard to the eight big seats. I understand that the second reading of the letter which I read to the Committee has disposed of any suggestion that that was something which was sought by the Government or given to us as a result of any negotiations. I repeat that that letter came to me as a complete novelty. I had no reason to expect that it was coming, and I would not have thought it right to print it as an annex to a Report when I had in fact received it 15 days before the Report was published.
With regard to the other nine seats in the nine cities, the Boundary Commission were requested on 9th March to divide those nine cities into constituencies, giving each city one more. That was as a result of the Debate which took place on Second

Reading. The Government are entitled to listen to arguments addressed to them from any part of the House on the Second Reading of a Bill of this nature. The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) has admitted that he was in favour of dividing up the eight big seats. He might have been landed with one of them, and he came to see me with his colleague, the hon. and gallant Member for North Paddington (Captain Field). I am quite sure the Committee will not need me to tell them which of the two was the more vociferous in the course of the interview, I hope I treated the hon. and gallant Gentleman courteously. I indicated to him that I would bear in mind the arguments which he and his colleague had addressed to me and that I would report what they had said to my colleagues in the Government. I received indications from other hon. Members on the other side of the Committee that they thought it desirable that an additional Member should be given to some of the nine big cities. I reported all these things to the Cabinet, and the decision was taken on the lines that I indicated in the speech I made earlier this afternoon.
I do not regard this figure as being any breach of an arrangement made at the Speaker's Conference. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the conference we had upstairs between parties. We did not on that occasion think that it was fair to expect the Boundary Commission to produce the exact number of 591. I recollect, that even on that afternoon we discussed what figure should be regarded as "substantially greater" and, perhaps with great wisdom, we all gave it up without even trying to assess what might be the nearest figure.
9.15 p.m.
I want now to refer to what I regard as the most objectionable part of the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman. He suggested that the Boundary Commission are not now operating, but I would draw his attention to Section 4 (3) of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944:
Any Boundary Commission may also from time to time—
This is not limited in any way—
submit to the Secretary of State reports with respect to the area comprised in any particular constituency or constituencies in the part of the United Kingdom with which they


are concerned, showing the constituencies into which they recommend that the area should be divided, and the number of members which they recommend should be returned by each of them, in order to give effect to the rules set out in the said Third Schedule.
That is a continuing obligation on the Boundary Commissioners. It is true—and I give the right hon. Gentleman this point—that it presupposes in the Subsection that the initiative will be taken by the Boundary Commissioners. They will be looking round at the country and saying, "Here is a group of constituencies requiring some adjustment, so that reasonably appropriate representation can be given to them." What was the harm, when the Government had taken the decision—which they had a perfect right to take, having listened to the arguments in the House—to increase the representation of these nine cities, going to these gentlemen officially, through their Chairman, and asking them to divide these nine cities into the number of constituencies that the Government had decided they would recommend to the House? I should have thought there could be no better body to go to, and when I said this afternoon that I was not concerned with whether they were acting officially or unofficially, what I meant was this: here we have four or five gentlemen who have given a great deal of time to this matter during the past two years, who were available for the job, who were willing to undertake it and who, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Government, were the persons best capable of doing the job that we wanted done.
I should have regarded it as a considerable slight on them if I had gone from them to somebody else to carry out this task. I really cannot understand what all the fuss is about because these were the gentlemen to whom we went. It was said by the hon. Member for Oxford earlier this afternoon that we went to them and said, "We want 12 more Labour seats," I gather there is some dispute as to whether, if that was our aim, we have hit the target. However, I can assure right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that no such request was made to them; they were told, "Here are nine cities to each of which we desire to add one constituency"——

Mr. Peake: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman to ask: would he claim, in either the matter of the eight big

boroughs or of the nine seats, that he had a report from the Boundary Commission?

Mr. Ede: I have received from the Boundary Commission, on the first occasion, unsolicited, and on the second occasion, as a result of a request by me, schemes for dividing, first, the eight big boroughs, and, secondly, the nine cities. Whether those are reports or not I leave Members of the Committee to decide.

Mr. Marlowe: Would the right hon. Gentleman clear up one point? The Section of the 1944 Act to which he is referring envisages the position of the Boundary Commission simultaneously giving and submitting new schemes to the right hon. Gentleman as an addendum to their last Report. What the right hon. Gentleman has done is the very reverse of that, requesting them to submit something to him which the Act does not obviously cover.

Mr. Ede: But the fact is that that duty was placed on them and keeps them in being. Here is a tribunal well fitted to deal with the issues with which the Government are concerned. It is actually in being and we can go to them with a request to divide these nine cities into fresh groupings of constituencies. I cannot see what is wrong with that. Do hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite mean to insinuate that these gentlemen of very high repute have given a less satisfactory report and less attention to the matter on this occasion than they did on the occasion of their first and second Reports?

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me a question and I rise to intervene. Our case is that if these were reports which these gentlemen made to the right hon. Gentleman, under the Section, which says that they have a right to make reports at any time, those reports should have been laid before Parliament by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ede: As I told the right hon. Gentleman opposite earlier this afternoon, the reports are embodied in the White Paper that was issued last Friday and in the Amendments we have put down to the Bill. Nothing else has passed between us and the Boundary Commissioners, and I still do not understand why it is regarded as inappropriate that these are the people who should have been consulted.

Mr. Keeling: Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with this point? When the Boundary Commissioners presented their original Report, they had, in fact, been required to consider, and had considered, objections to their proposal, and were empowered to hold local inquiries. In this case was there any opportunity given for objections to their proposals to be heard?

Mr. Ede: No, there was not. Requests have been made to me this afternoon as to what is the position in regard to that. I will ask the Boundary Commissioners to receive and consider any representations that any hon. or right hon. Gentlemen or the political parties or the local authorities may desire to address to them with regard to the way in which these constituencies have been divided.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: And the others as well.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said already so far as Manchester is concerned, but would he go so far as to hold a public inquiry as to the demarcation of the nine divisions in Manchester?

Mr. Ede: There has never been any compulsion on the Boundary Commissioners to hold a local inquiry. In fact, some time was spent this afternoon between hon. Members representing different constituencies in Birmingham about a case where I understand a local inquiry was desired but was not, in fact, held by the Boundary Commissioners. I think there may be difficulty with regard to the question of time between now and the Report stage if local inquiries have to be held. I believe that if hon. Members, political parties, local authorities and others interested, who may desire to make representations to the Boundary Commissions, get the right to lay before them their views with regard to the appropriate division of the constituencies in, first of all, the eight big boroughs—because they are in exactly the same position as the nine cities—or, in the case of the nine cities themselves, all the reasonable requirements of the case will be met.

Sir P. Hannon: In the case of Birmingham, the complaint was submitted that the City Council made unsuccessful representations to the Boundary Commission to examine certain proposals which they wished to submit regarding the boundary

of the constituency. In view of the fact that no response was given to the appeal, would the Home Secretary consider sending a recommendation to the Boundary Commission to hear the Birmingham case?

Mr. Ede: I will ask the Boundary Commissioners if they will receive representations from persons interested, who would have had the right to make representations if this had been part of the original scheme.

Mr. Keeling: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one more question?

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Member for Woodford declined to give way even once this afternoon. I persistently try to be courteous to the Committee, but, on occasions, these constant interruptions make it very difficult indeed to present a connected argument to the Committee.

Mr. Keeling: The question I wish to ask is whether the right to raise objections will extend to other constituencies which, in consequence of these proposals, may now very well think that they themselves, in comparison, are unrepresented?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. We are submitting these proposals to the Committee. If the Committee accept the view that 80,000 electors on the 1946 Register are too many for a Member to represent in Parliament, I do not think that those people who are just below the line have the right to come along and say that they do not think these 80,000 electors ought to be split. We had the amazing case this evening of the noble Lord the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Lord Willoughby de Eresby), whose constituency under the Boundary Commissioner's Report will have 41,629 electors, objecting to constituencies with 88,000 electors being split in two.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: As the right hon. Gentleman quoted me, I would point out that I did not raise that objection at all. The whole of my speech was aimed at the way this was being done, and the fact that no consultations were held, and possible agreement reached, with other parties concerned.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Ede: Very few of the right hon. and hon. Members who cheered just then were in the Chamber when the speech was made. I hope that the noble Lord and


they will read the speech in HANSARD tomorrow, and will then decide whether what I have said is a fair comment upon it or not.
The effect of these proposals is slightly to reduce the under-representation of England. It is also intended to reduce the present big gap between county and borough constituencies in England from something like 6,000, which is the present disparity, to 2,400, which will be the disparity if these Amendments are carried. We believe that these are desirable and necessary Amendments. I do not apologise for having listened to representations that were made to me in the House and for having endeavoured to put into the Bill what appeared to me to be the wishes of the House as expressed in the Debate on the Second Reading.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. A moment ago I raised with the Temporary Chairman the question whether papers read by a Minister in Debate should be laid. I do not rise at the moment to ask you to give a Ruling on the matter, but there is a custom that unless matters of this kind are raised immediately, the Member loses his opportunity. I, therefore, beg to seek your guidance as to how I might keep open this question on an interesting matter of procedure while you have an opportunity of examining and considering the authorities. Further, Mr. Beaumont, I would ask whether, if this matter were raised

on the next Sittting when this Bill is brought before us, it would then be convenient for you to give a considered Ruling on the point which I raised with the Temporary Chairman.

Mr. Ede: Further to that point of Order. The letter has been twice read to the Committee. It will appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, probably twice. If it is desired that it should also be published as a White Paper for the information of Members I shall certainly have no objection to laying it on the Table.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: I do not think that that was the hon. Member's point. It is not so much a question of this letter, but the Temporary Chairman gave a ruling applicable to any similar instance which might occur in a Committee of this House, and that is what we wanted to get clear.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I was not in the Chamber at the time, and I am not conversant with the facts, but I can assure the Committee that the whole of the relevant facts will be considered and precedents examined, and at an early stage in the proceedings of this Bill a statement will be made either by myself or the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 125.

Division No. 108.
AYES.
[9.33 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Boardman, H.
Colman, Miss G. M.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bottomley, A. G.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Corlett, Dr. J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Crawley, A.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Crossman, R. H. S


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Cunningham, P.


Alpass, J. H.
Bramall, E. A.
Daggar, G.


Attewell, H. C.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Daines, P.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Austin, H. Lewis
Brown, George (Belper)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W)


Bacon, Miss A.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Davies, R. J (Westhoughton)


Baird, J.
Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Baifour, A.
Burden, T. W.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Delargy, H. J.


Barstow, P. G.
Byers, Frank
Diamond, J.


Barton, C.
Callaghan, James
Dobbie, W.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Carmichael, James
Dodds, N. N.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Donovan, T.


Benson, G.
Champion, A. J.
Driberg, T. E. N.


Berry, H.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)


Bing, G. H. C.
Cluse, W. S.
Dumpleton, C. W.


Binns, J.
Cobb, F. A.
Durbin, E. F. M.


Blackburn, A. R.
Collick, P.
Dye, S.


Blenkinsop, A.
Collindridge, F.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Blyton, W. R.
Collins, V. J.
Edelman, M.




Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Scollan, T


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Leslie, J. R.
Segal, Dr. S


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Levy, B. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sharp, Granville


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H (St. Helens)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Longden, F.
Shurmer, P


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lyne, A. W.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L


Fairhurst, F.
McAdam, W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Farthing, W. J
McEntee, V. La T
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Fernyhough, E.
McGhee, H. G.
Simmons, C. J.


Field, Capt. W. J.
McGovern, J.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mack, J. D.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Follich, M.
MoKay, J. (Wallsend)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Foot, M. M.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Forman, J. C.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McLeavy, F.
Solley, L. J


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Gallacher, W.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Soskice, Sir Frank


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Marquand, H. A.
Sparks, J. A.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Stamford, W


Gibson, C. W.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Steele, T.


Gilzean, A.
Mayhew, C P
Stubbs, A. E.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mellish, R. J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Geoch, E. G.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Symonds, A. L.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mitchison, G. R
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Monslow, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Grey, C. F.
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morley, R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Gunter, R. J.
Moyle, A.
Thurtle, Ernest


Guy, W. H.
Mulvey, A.
Tiffany, S


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Murray, J. D
Titterington, M. F


Hale, Leslie
Naylor, T. E.
Tolley, L.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Turner-Samuels, M


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Hardman, D. R
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Usborne, Henry


Hardy, E. A.
Oldfield, W. H.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oliver, G. H
Viant, S. P


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Orbach, M.
Wadsworth, G.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paget, R. T.
Watkins, T. E.


Herbison, Miss M
Pargiter, G. A
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Hobson, C. R.
Parker, J.
Weitzman, D.


Hoy, J.
Parkin, B. T.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
West, D. G.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, A.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W)
Peart, T. F.
Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)



Perrins, W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Hutchinson, H. L (Rusholme)
Platts-Mills, J F. F
Wigg, George


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Wilkes, L.


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Wilkins, W. A.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Price, M. Philips
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Pritt, D N.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Janner, B.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Jay, D. P. T.
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingreve)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Johnston, D. H
Randall, H. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Ranger, J
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Rankin, J.
Willis, E.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Rees-Williams, D. R
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Reeves, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Keenan, W.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Kendall, W. D
Rhodes, H.
Yates, V. F


Kenyon, C.
Richards, R.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Key, C. W.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Zilliacus, K


Kinley, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)



Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lang, G.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Mr. Snow and


Lawson, Rt. Hon J. J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Mr. George Wallace.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Royle, C.





NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Bower, N.
Channon, H.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot Univ.)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Clarke, Col. R. S.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G


Astor, Hon. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.


Baldwin, A. E.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)


Baxter, A. B.
Butcher, H. W.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Cuthbert, W. N.


Bossom, A. C.
Challen, C.
Davidson, Viscountess







Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Prescott, Stanley


Donner, P. W.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A R[...]
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Drayson, G. B
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Renton, D.


Drewe, C.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Low, A. R. W.
Robinson, Roland


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Ropner, Col. L.


Eccles, D. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col., Rt. Hon. W
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A


Erroll, F. J.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Spence, H. R.


Fox, Sir G.
Maclean, F. H. R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
MacLeod, J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Taylor, Vice-Adm, E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Grimston, R. V.
Maude, J. C.
Teeling, William


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Mellor, Sir J.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Thorp, Brigadier, R. A. F


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Touche, G. C.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Mullan, Lt. C. H.
Walker-Smith, D.


Hope, Lord J.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Howard, Hon. A.
Odey, G. W.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
York, C.


Hurd, A.
Osborne, C.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.



Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Keeling, E. H.
Pickthorn, K.
Commander Agnew and


Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E
Mr. Studholme.


Question put, and agreed to.

The Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, after "rule 2" to insert "paragraph (2) of rule 5A."
The purpose of this Amendment is to remove from the redistribution rules a reference to two-Member constituencies, since under the provisions of this Bill such constituencies will no longer exist.

Amendment agreed to.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. MeLeavy: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, at the end, to add:
(c) Rule 5A shall be amended by inserting at the end of paragraph (1) the words 'In any subsequent review of a Parliamentary Constituency the Boundary Commission shall hold a local public inquiry, if requested to do so by resolution of the local government authority for the area affected'.
This Amendment is designed to ensure that in any future review of Parliamentary constituencies the Boundary Commission shall be requested by the local authority concerned to hold a public inquiry. I think it would be generally agreed that a local public inquiry is desirable, if there is sufficient time for such an inquiry to be held.
Under any subsequent review of Parliamentary constituencies there would be ample time for the Boundary Commission to hold local inquiries. The local

authority, who represent the views of the community in the area concerned, may feel that the recommendations of the Boundary Commission are not in keeping with the justifiable claims of the city or town. In such an event they are entitled to expect that Parliament will give them the right, by resolution of the council, to have a public inquiry into the point of difference between them and the Boundary Commission. The Committee will agree that the importance of civic pride in the cities and towns throughout the country justifies this acknowledgment that local authorities represent the general opinion of the community. They are entitled, therefore, to make such representations on these matters as they feel will safeguard the interests of the community.
The very considerable civic pride in the large cities and towns, and also in some of the smaller ones has been the foundation of some of the more progressive work in the various cities and towns. Neither we, as a Committee, nor Parliament should do anything which would in any way damp down that spirit of civic pride, which, after all, has been the foundation of the whole of our local Government administration. This Amendment will ensure for the local authority, or for any political party or anybody else in the area, that measure of representation after local


inquiry which the Home Secretary conceded in his concluding speech on the last Clause. Therefore, I ask the Home Secretary on behalf of the Government to accept this reasonable Amendment which, I am sure, will be supported from all sides of the Committee.

Mr. McKie: I hope that my Friend the Home Secretary will listen sympathetically to the views expressed by the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy), and also to what some of his very generous supporters have said. The Committee are under a debt of gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for putting down this Amendment. It is the kind of Amendment for which we on this side have been pressing while so much nationalising legislation has been pushed through at such a rapid rate by the present Government. Up to the present we have not been successful in incorporating any Amendment which would achieve the kind of result which the hon. Member for East Bradford hás in view. That is probably because we have been on the Opposition side. Now, at long last, the consciences of hon. and right hon. Members on the Government side have been awakened to the necessity for this kind of thing.
Let me assure the Home Secretary that it is just as necessary for county local authorities to have a local inquiry to consider questions such as these, as it is for the great urban districts. The hon. Member for East Bradford, judging by his name, is probably a Yorkshireman by adoption, but he will realise how very strongly feeling runs in the county boroughs in regard to possible changes, and that this feeling is probably greater than in the case of the boroughs, because there is a far more intimate connection between the county representatives and their constituents. If the Government are not prepared to give sympathetic consideration to this Amendment, I hope that the hon. Member will take the appropriate action and have the courage to divide the Committee.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Boundary Commission was subjected to a certain amount of criticism at an earlier stage. An hon. Member suggested that the Commission had not considered objections and views put before them, and that criticism of members of the Commission, who are not here to defend themselves, has not

yet been repudiated by the right hon. Gentleman. It is material, in considering the merits of this Amendment, to ask whether there is any foundation for a suggestion of that sort. I should be extremely surprised if there were the slightest substance in this criticism. I should also like to know whether there has been a case meriting a local inquiry where the Boundary Commission have refused or neglected to hold one.

Mr. McLeavy: In the case of Bradford, the recommendations of the Commission were to take away one of our four seats. The feelings about these recommendations were very strong among all political parties in the city. The city council made application to the Boundary Commission to hold a public inquiry, in view of the discontent which was felt throughout the city. That request was turned down, and the purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that the Boundary Commission shall not, in future, be allowed to turn down a request made on behalf of the community by resolution of the council.

Mrs. Middleton: May I also say that the same thing happened in the case of Plymouth?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I appreciate the feelings of the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy). I was quite clear on the argument he put forward in support of the Amendment. I think there is some confusion of thought here. Surely, we cannot assume that every time there is an objection to a proposal there should be a right to hold a local inquiry? The question I was putting to the right hon. Gentleman, which I hope he will answer, was rather on a wider field. It may well be that in a number of cases the arguments for and against can be put on paper. I would like to hear the right hon. Gentleman's views on the question of whether, when there is public feeling, perhaps about the name of the constituency, there should be an automatic right of the local authority to demand, as of right, a local inquiry.

Mr. McLeavy: Mr. McLeavy rose——

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member will no doubt have an opportunity of making further comments later. I was addressing my remarks to the Home Secretary. In my constituency representations were made by one of many local authorities about the proposed


name of the constituency. I, for my part, would never suggest that if the wishes of the local authority on a matter of that sort were not met by the Boundary Commission, there should be an automatic right to have a local inquiry into the matter. I am not at all clear how this provision will operate if it is included in the Bill in the case of a county division, in which a considerable number of local authorities are concerned. It may well be that the consequence of operating this would be that a whole series of local inquiries might be demanded, one after the other, by the local authorities, with the result that the Boundary Commission would not be assisted, but would be delayed, in the execution of their work.
Personally, I have great confidence in the independence and fairness of the Boundary Commission in their endeavour to do their work properly, when they are acting in their official capacity. I should be surprised to hear that local inquiries have been refused by the Commission where they should have been granted. In the case of applying for extra seats, surely it is possible to put the arguments adequately on paper. I do not believe that it necessarily follows that because of the feeling of a certain section of the public a local inquiry would serve a very useful purpose. Under the New Towns Act there has been some criticism that the inquiries held by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning have not served any useful purpose. Indeed, I believe the suggestion was made by the Minister, who is not here, that these inquiries were valuable only because they enabled people to blow off steam—I think that was the expression which the right hon. Gentleman used.
Before making up our minds as to whether this Amendment should go into the Bill, we ought to know from the right hon. Gentleman the number of times an inquiry has been asked for and refused, and the nature of the case where there has been a refusal. I feel confident that without any provision of this sort the Boundary Commission would hold a local inquiry where it would assist them in the fulfilment of their duties, and in that belief I cannot advise my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side to support the Amendment.

Mr. Keenan: I believe there is some justification for seek-

ing other means of ventilating grievances. Representation by Members to the Home Secretary has been possible, and I believe that the suggestion in the Amendment is sound. However, I can see that some objection might be taken to it by the Home Secretary in so far as the local authority does not provide an opportunity for many authorities that might be concerned with Parliamentary representation to make their views known. There will be difficulty in the case of county constituencies which contain half a dozen local authorities. The opportunity to ventilate grievances should be granted. Some people in Liverpool have been rather alarmed about it. The local authority, if they had had an opportunity of stating their case to the Commission, would have been able, I think, to prove that they were entitled to two instead of one. Liverpool, which would have lost three out of 11 seats, actually loses two now. We feel that we have had more taken away from our representation than we ought to have had. I ask the Home Secretary, even if he cannot accept this particular Amendment, to consider inserting an Amendment of this kind which will give the localities concerned the opportunity of stating what they want.

10.0 p.m.

Sir P. Hannon: I intervene only because of the complaint from the Birmingham district during the course of our Debate this afternoon. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) about having full confidence in the Boundary Commission. I do not know what happened in the case of the complaint that came from Birmingham, but I appeal to the Boundary Commission to give them an opportunity of stating their case for an additional Member. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Daventry that an Amendment of this kind must safeguard the future position of local authorities, but I think that there is some substance in the proposal made by the hon. Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy) that there should be a right of appeal, within given limits, to the Boundary Commission where any disagreement arises.

Mr. Ede: Let me make it quite clear that in the first place I have no responsibility for the Boundary Commissioners. I can make requests to them. I receive their reports, but I cannot direct them, and I


am not in any way responsible for the way in which they conduct their business. I would point out, as mentioned by two hon. Members at least who have taken part in the Debate, that this Amendment, while it might be applied to great cities or even to boroughs which have a single Member of Parliament representing a single borough, cannot be applied to county divisions, because this would give the right to a parish meeting to demand an inquiry into some proceedings of the Boundary Commissioners.
What I understand happened was this: where the Boundary Commission thought that there were some particular local considerations that needed investigation on the spot, they held a local inquiry, but where the question was merely what number of Members should be allotted to a particular county or borough, they thought that written evidence would meet all that was required. They were bound to have regard to the electorate on certain registers, the particulars of which had been supplied to them by the appropriate registration officer. Where it was merely a question of whether that number of electors entitled a constituency to x members, or x plus one, or x minus one, it was felt that that situation could be dealt with quite apart from holding a local inquiry, but where there were local considerations involved, such as means of access from one part of the constituency to another, they thought it desirable to get the kind of local colour which was necessary if those statistics were to be made really living at all.
I have no doubt that the Boundary Commissioners will read what has been said in the course of this Debate. I believe they honestly endeavoured, within the short space of time that was allowed them in presenting their first and second Reports, to produce the best possible job; but, I do not think we could place a Boundary Commission under the definite obligation to hold an inquiry merely because it was demanded by a local authority, if they thought no good purpose would be served by the inquiry. On the other hand, I think most hon. Members would agree, and I think the Boundary Commissioners would agree, that if they had a doubt in their minds whether an inquiry should be held or not, probably the best thing to do would be to give the locality the benefit of the doubt, and hold the inquiry.

Sir P. Hannon: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. I want it to be understood that I make no charge of any sort against the Boundary Commission. What I say in the case of Birmingham and the proposal made to the Boundary Commission to hold a local inquiry, is that a misunderstanding must have arisen. I am sure the Home Secretary will at once realise that a great local authority like Birmingham, instead of getting mere acknowledgment, should at least have the courtesy of a full reply, stating why a local inquiry should not take place.

Mr. Ede: I am not quite sure that I can go as far as that, because very often one is let in for trouble the minute one begins to give reasons for doing what is a perfectly proper thing. I agree that the local authority are entitled to receive, and I have no doubt do receive every courtesy in this matter from the Boundary Commission, but I cannot advise the Committee to insert this Amendment in the Bill, because it would give in some county constituencies with probably 100 parish councils and parish meetings a right for each one to demand a public local inquiry. The City of Birmingham might be at one extreme, and these other authorities are at the other extreme, and in the wording of this Amendment each would be entitled to make the same demands on the Boundary Commission. I have no doubt that the speeches made on this matter during the course of this Debate will be read by the Boundary Commission. It must not be taken that I am suggesting that they have acted improperly. I have no doubt they will read these speeches, and it will be some guidance to them as to what might be the proper course on some future occasions.

Mr. McLeavy: Will my right hon. Friend consider, between now and the Report stage, introducing something into the Bill which will meet the main argument of this Amendment? The Home Secretary has said that he cannot give instructions to the Boundary Commission, and the Committee appreciate that, but I think we are entitled to say that the House are entitled to give instructions to the Boundary Commission, or to anyone else acting for us, which will ensure the right of the public to adequate protection against errors—and everyone is capable of making errors.

Mr. Ede: I could not undertake to put into the Bill an Amendment imposing on the Boundary Commissioners the obligation to hold an inquiry because it was demanded by a local authority, or anyone else. My hon. Friend's point will have been well met by the ventilation this subject has received, and I ask him to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Neil Maclean: I ask the Home Secretary to press this matter, probably not by way of legislation but by recommendation to the Boundary Commissions in the various parts of the country. I had the very curious experience of putting forward a request to appear before the Boundary Commission for Scotland, with the object of setting out certain particulars in which I considered they were going wrong in dividing up the constituency which I represent and the adjoining constituencies. They refused to permit me to come before them. I sent three letters and on each occasion I was refused. Finally, I sent a letter to Mr. Speaker. He was the titular chairman of the Boundary Commissions. He wrote to the Boundary Commission for Scotland and told them that they must receive me, and I was received. If that can be done in my case, it can be done in the case of a local authority. I have represented my constituency for 30 years in this House. I ran about it as a boy. I know its conditions and its whole history. I know its history, not merely the history of present day shipbuilding, but the history that goes back to before the year 400 when its patron saint was murdered and buried in that constituency.
When I appeared before the Commissioners and put the whole case before them, with its history, they paid me a fairly high compliment, although they struck the cup of water, or whatever it might have been, from my lips by refusing to go over the assessment of the boundaries again. They have asked me if I will give them the benefit of my knowledge of the whole history of this constituency, when they are preparing the new statistical record for it. I still hold that the parts that have been taken away from the constituency should be brought back, and I have put down an Amendment to that end. I am confident that had those Commissioners spent even half an hour in the constituency of Govan they would not have drawn up the

boundaries as they appear at the present time in the report to the Home Office.

Mr. Ede: I should have thought that the earlier Debate we had today would have indicated the unwisdom of the Home Secretary in England and Wales or the Secretary of State for Scotland making any recommendation to a Boundary Commission. A Boundary Commission is an independent body which cannot be influenced by a Government Department but they can be asked, as I did——

Mr. Maclean: Are there any rules laid down for the guidance of the Commission in considering the boundaries of the constituencies?

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Oh, yes. In fact we are discussing the rules at the present time, and this is a proposed new rule which is now before the Committee. They are bound to observe those rules. My hon. Friend who wanted to go in front of the Commission did the right thing. He wrote to the Chairman of the Commission and asked if he could be heard by the Commission, and the Chairman directed the Commissioners to receive and listen to his argument. That is a perfectly fair thing. Presumably the Chairman is in a position to make recommendations to his fellow Commissioners who act under him. That appears to me to be a perfectly legitimate line to adopt. I am quite certain that no Minister of State ought to be in a position where he makes recommendations to or frames rules for the Boundary Commission other than those that are framed by the House and inserted in this Bill amending the previous measure which established the Boundary Commissioners.
I am bound to say that I think that when we ask distinguished people of the kind who act as Boundary Commissioners to serve, we must trust them to act reasonably. We must give them the opportunity of conducting their own business in their own way within the rules that we frame for them, and I do not think it would be a fair rule to place on them the obligation to hold an inquiry merely because a city council or any other local authority asked for it. I have no doubt that if they think the interests of the area and their own interests will be served, they will hold an inquiry.

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why he has broken those rules?

Mr. Ede: I have not broken the rules at all.

Mrs. Middleton: I would like to ask my right hon. Friend what redress an authority has in this matter. Contrary to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), the City of Plymouth asked for a local inquiry. That request was backed by the three hon. Members for the city and it also had the unanimous support of all the parties in the city—apparently the only issue upon which there is unanimous support in the city——

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I did not suggest that an inquiry had not been asked for. I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he could indicate whether, in his opinion, a request for an inquiry had ever been refused when there were proper circumstances to warrant it being granted, a quite different question.

Mrs. Middleton: I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon, but I do not think that his explanation invalidates my argument, although I am sorry if I misrepresented him. What redress has a locality in this matter? There has been complete unanimity on this in Plymouth. No voice has been raised in Plymouth all through these discussions contrary to the view that the Drake Division should be retained. Representations were made to the Boundary Commission and we asked for a local inquiry. That request was-not granted. We urge that there are grave local circumstances which entitle us to special recognition in this matter, and we have had no chance of putting that view to the Boundary Commission. I would like my right hon. Friend to tell us what redress we have in those circumstances.

Mr. Ede: I cannot think that the City Council of Plymouth, the hon. Members for Plymouth and other persons in the area have been prevented from communicating with the Boundary Commissioners. The case of Plymouth is that, with approximately 140,000 electors on the 1946 register, they ought to have three seats. That is a matter which, after all is of mathematical determination. The Boundary Commissioners, having received the views of the various parties concerned,

came to a certain conclusion which they have embodied in their report, and I cannot think that anything would have been gained in that case had there been a local inquiry. It would not have added a single person to the electoral roll, and it would not have altered the rules which had been embodied previously in legislation. I should imagine that if the matter had to be raised, the only way in which it could be raised would be to ask that the expenses of the Boundary Commissioners should be put down for discussion in the House. They would then be in this unfortunate position, that there is nobody here responsible for them, and I am not quite sure how their case could be presented to the House.

Mr. Marlowe: I want the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the matter to which he referred earlier, the independence of the Commission. The right hon. Gentleman said, and I agree with the view, that this is an entirely independent body which should not be influenced by any outside representations, but that is completely contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier when he had to admit that, having received the report of the Boundary Commission, he sent it back with something in the nature of a request that they should make recommendations for nine more Members in the city divisions. That is the effect, although the right hon. Gentleman has not told us exactly what was the communication that the Boundary Commissioners had—he has been very careful to keep that secret. There can be no doubt of this, that the Boundary Commissioners made their report, and that report did not contain a recommendation for those nine Members. In due course something was said to the Boundary Commissioners and they came back with exactly what the right hon. Gentleman wanted, which was nine extra Members in those nine seats. How does that tally with the right hon. Gentleman's proposition a moment ago that there should be no interference with these Commissioners, and that they should be left entirely independent to act spontaneously of their own volition? What is quite clear in the case with which we were dealing earlier is that they did not agree, and the right hon. Gentleman brought some kind of influence to bear upon them——

Mr. Ede: Really, the hon. and learned Gentleman has not been in all day and


is now willing to confirm any statement made recklessly by any other hon. Member in the Chamber. I made a request, which was neither a direction nor an order. I am not entitled to direct the hon. and learned Member, but there are many requests that from time to time I might want to make to him. I am quite sure that he has sufficient skill to realise the difference between the two positions.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. George Wigg: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, at the end, to add:
(c) at the end of Rule 6, the following words shall be inserted 'but there shall be no departure from the last two foregoing Rules if a constituency would then be formed by joining a county or part of a county and a county borough which are not contiguous.' 
The only constituency in England affected by this Amendment is my own, and I have put down the Amendment in response to requests from the local authority, the County Borough of Dudley, who unanimously reject the proposition that the borough should be linked to the municipal borough of Stourbridge, as there is no community of interest and there is a corridor in between. It is true that the borough of Dudley stands in a special position inasmuch as it is a piece of Worcestershire, surrounded by Staffordshire. The proposal created a great deal of consternation, not only in Dudley but also in Stourbridge, and in addition, the Worcestershire County Council also object to the proposal. It is quite clear that the Home Secretary himself does not really believe in a suggestion of this kind, because in his reply to the Debate on the City of London proposals, one finds that more than once he expressed the hope that efforts would be made to link the City with an adjoining area.
Whilst I do not ask for much sympathy for the special case for which I am speaking, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that what has happened to the county borough which I have the honour to represent would happen to any other constituency if a small piece of the puzzle caused by a general redistribution happened to be left over and was found difficult to fit in. I am quite sure the Home Secretary would be willing alternatively to consider pro-

posals if I were in a position to make them but I do not feel it is my job to speak for the County of Worcestershire. That is one of my difficulties. If I had the right to speak for that county, I should have put down an Amendment to the Schedule. As I can speak only for Dudley, that is not the way to approach the problem. It should, therefore, be laid down as a matter of principle that no county borough should be attached to an area which is not contiguous to it.
I thank the Committee for having borne as patiently as they have with me. I have tried to be as brief as I can, and I hope the Home Secretary will sympathetically consider the point of view that I have put forward, and that he will accept the view that this untidy arrangement should not be persisted in. I hope, therefore, that he will agree between now and the Report stage to re-examine the position and see whether something can be done to tidy up the position.

Mr. Ede: This is a single case, which I believe has no companion in any part of the country. The County Borough of Dudley geographically is an island in the administrative county of Staffordshire. The Boundary Commission proceeded to deal with the allocation of seats in England on the basis of counties. They have, therefore, preserved the historical connection between Dudley and the County of Worcester. Quite frankly, I do not see what else they could have done, and as this is a unique case I do not think it ought to be dealt with by a general rule if there is any objection to the allocation that has been made of partners for Dudley in a Parliamentary constituency. That is a matter which should be dealt with at a later stage of the Bill. To add this general rule, which probably would have the effect of making Dudley by itself a single-Member constituency, is not something that ought to be done in the general rules dealing with redistribution.

Mr. Wigg: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, I must take exception to the statement he has made that it is perfectly normal procedure, because in the first Report the Commission linked Dudley with the adjoining area of Sedgley, and it was only on the second Report


that they attached it to an area the nearest point in which is several miles away. I cannot accept the view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman that because it happens to be Dudley on this occasion, there is no reason for amending the rule. Surely that is the essential point. It happens to be Dudley now, but it may well be another place in the future.

Mr. Ede: I have had the matter investigated and I am informed that there is no other position in the country which duplicates that which Dudley occupies of being a county borough which is isolated in an adjoining geographical county.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman has recently explained the relationship of the Home Secretary to the Boundary Commission and he has made it quite clear it would be wrong—indeed, he has no legal authority—to give the Boundary Commission any direction of any kind whatsoever, either to provide more seats at the request of his supporters or any other matter. He has explained what, in his view, is the difference between a request coming from the Home Secretary and direction. The difference may sometimes not be very great, as, for instance, when there is a request from the Ministry of Labour, with the threat of direction if a person does not comply with the request. I would not press my comment on that, but bearing in mind the right hon. Gentleman's lack of power and lack of right to give any directions to the Boundary Commission, I am desirous of asking him certain questions about how representations with regard to new constituencies are to be implemented.
The Boundary Commission is, as he has pointed out, a statutory body with statutory powers. Its procedure is set out in the Part III of the First Schedule of the 1944 Act, and I think I am right in saying that that part has not been materially altered by the subsequent statutes. I say that from memory, as I have not had time to look at it. Under the 1944 Act, where the Boundary Commission made proposals, these had to be published and the persons affected had

one month in which to make representations. It was only after those representations were made that the Boundary Commission would hold a local inquiry. I think that is the situation. What I am wondering about is this: How the right hon. Gentleman's pledge about the possibility of holding inquiries with regard to the new constituencies is to be implemented, bearing in mind that he has no power of giving directions? Under Subsection (3) of the 1944 Act, while it is true that the Boundary Commission may, from time to time, submit reports to the Secretary of State in connection with particular constituencies, by Subsection (4) it is provided that where they intend to consider making a report they have to inform the Secretary of State and it has to be published. Only after that has happened does the period of one month run.
There has been no report laid before this House recommending these new constituencies. There has been no action by the Boundary Commission under their powers, which this House has given them under Subsection (4) of the 1944 Act. The initiative has come from the right hon. Gentleman—he has admitted it with regard to the nine cities—and, therefore, I am wondering how the machinery contained in the 1944 Act can properly be made use of to implement the right hon. Gentleman's pledge, which he so recently made. It appears to me that if any effect is to be given to that pledge it will necessitate some further legislation because the Boundary Commission, with their statutory powers so closely defined, cannot, having made no report, recommend these extra constituencies in these nine large cities. They cannot then comply with either Subsection (3) or with Subsection (4) so this period for making representations to them provided by the Act of Parliament under Part III of the First Schedule does not apply either.
Before we pass from this Clause, having regard to all that has happened since this Bill was first contemplated, we ought to get a very clear statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to the precise rights of the people who will be affected by the alterations which have been made since this Bill had its Second Reading, and the alterations which will be made. As I see it the Boundary Commission cannot possibly act in accordance with the 1944 Act in relation to those nine cities; for their


power of publishing proposals must depend upon their first publishing or submitting a report to the right hon. Gentleman. There has been a demand from behind the right hon. Gentleman for inquiries which, in cases up to now, the Boundary Commission has refused. The right hon. Gentleman rather indicated, while emphasising that he cannot give directions, the likelihood that in view of criticisms the Boundary Commission will, in future, grant inquiries more readily.

Mr. Ede: I have said nothing to justify that.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I said "indicated." I thought from what the right hon. Gentleman said that that was the inference to be drawn from his statement. If I have misrepresented him, I hope he will make clear what he meant by saying that the Boundary Commission will have due regard to these complaints about not holding inquiries. The fact remains that machinery does exist for providing these inquiries and the right to make representations, which the right hon. Gentleman said would exist with regard to these nine large cities.
The machinery with regard to these nine large cities is to be brought into conformity with the machinery—and I think that will require legislation—of the 1944 Act. What about the time factor? Are the Boundary Commission likely to be able to hold the local inquiries and to make their final reports in sufficient time for these changes to be considered—if they propose any changes—and for their recommendations to be given effect to under this Measure? The right hon. Gentleman departed from the course he indicated at the beginning of this Parliament in regard to consultation on matters of this sort. Now I think the time has come to satisfy this Committee that the assurances he gave can legally be given effect to under existing legislation, and, if not under existing legislation, to give assurances that legislation will be introduced forthwith to make his promise possible on fulfilment.

Mr. Mathers: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at line 8 on page 4, he will find a word used in relation to Scotland which has no validity in Scotland at all. Although this may be intended to be a quotation—it would appear to be a quotation from the way in which the Subsection of the Clause is

printed—I do not think there is any reason why we should slavishly adhere to an error when we are dealing with a piece of legislation. I refer to the spelling of the word "boroughs," which is spelt in the English way. That form has no validity in Scotland. It may be technically correct to have it there, but I do not think there is any reason for slavishly adhering to an error when it could be corrected.

Mr. P. Roberts: The Committee having passed the earlier Amendment, and so accepted the principle, it seems to me that the suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for North-East Leeds (Miss Bacon), is one which I can support. It is difficult to argue Amendments in a Committee of this kind. The Home Secretary said that the reasons for this Amendment were because of what he heard on the Second Reading. What I want to put to the, right hon. Gentleman is that the rights of Members of Parliament would be exercised normally in debating an Amendment.
It seems to me that the suggestion is that Members of Parliament should be able to approach the Boundary Commission—I do not think that would be illegal —to put up points which they would otherwise have put to the Committee, and that a recommendation should then be made by the Commission to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary could implement the recommendation or not, as he thought fit. That does not seem to me to need legislation. It is merely a means of putting the rights of Members of Parliament definitely before the Home Secretary. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider it. I do not think that a suggestion for bringing more or less agreed Amendments before the Home Secretary does need legislation.
The Home Secretary referred to the Boundary Commission's, Report, and the rules thereof, where a definition of an electoral quota is given. In his speech on the previous Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman said that the average electoral quota for the whole of England, under the new scheme, would be 56,00o. I think that was the figure which he gave. When the Boundary Commission is considering the electoral quota, and it sees in the new White Paper the statement that certain boroughs are as low as 40,000 or


41,000, others being as high as 70,00o, am I right in thinking that it would be within the electoral quota, having regard to these rules, to have constituencies of 40,000 or 41,00o and others of 65,00o or 70,000? That would not mean a special departure from these rules? I do not know whether I have made my point clear, but we have in this White Paper a large number of constituencies of 40,000 or 41,00o. Have the Boundary Commission considered that that is the average of the electoral quota?

Mr. Ede: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), the spelling of the expression "Parliamentary Boroughs" derives from the 1918 Act, and that in this Act we have merely been following the precedent then established. I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will consider whether it is necessary to amend the word and put it into the Scottish form of spelling before we get to the Report stage.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not a question of whether the Lord Advocate will consider whether that is necessary. Such an Amendment is necessary, because the present spelling is quite incorrect. I am quite sure that he will not wish to continue something which was wrong in 1918, but should not be wrong in 1948.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not desire me to express a positive opinion on so purely a Scottish point. With regard to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), I undertook that I would ask the Boundary Commissioners if they would consider the representations that might be made as a result of the proposed Amendments. I shall implement that promise. If it requires anything more than is in the Bill, I will undertake to see that what is required is inserted. I do not think it will be necessary for this very limited range of constituencies to go through all the motions that are rightly required when a question of general redistribution is being considered. If it will assist hon. Members, I will undertake to consult with the hon. and learned Gentleman and with

anyone else associated with him, as well as with hon. Members representing these constituencies, when I get an answer from the Boundary Commissioners to my request. If they are unwilling to undertake the task, it may then be necessary to establish some machinery which can be used to ensure that local views and objections on these matters can be adequately voiced and considered. I give the undertaking that that shall be done.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman has gone a little way, but I am not sure that he has gone far enough. He has given an undertaking that he will approach the Boundary Commission. If the Boundary Commission say, as they may well say, that they really have no power under existing statutes to do what the right hon. Gentleman asks them to do, then I infer from what he has said that he will see that power is given to them, if he can get the Measure through this House, to consider representations made in relation to these nine cities. Further, we want to be clear that he will seek to ensure, one way or another, that the Boundary Commission will give similar rights to parties affected, to make representations and to apply for a local inquiry, as now exist in the case of any representation made by the Boundary Commission under the 1944 Act. I think that that was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, but I do not think that. he went so far as to express it, if it was. If I have correctly interpreted what he had in mind, that would go a long way towards making his pledge a reality.

Mr. Ede: I do not know whether the Boundary Commission will accede to the request which I propose to make to them. If they do not, clearly it will be necessary for some other machinery to be established which will enable representations to be made, from which recommendations can be forwarded to me by whoever conducts the inquiry. I should have thought that it did not require statutory power for a local inquiry to be held when the objections, suggestions or proposals had been received. There is no statute to prevent a local inquiry being held in such circumstances, and I have promised the hon. and learned Gentleman that when I know exactly what the attitude of the Boundary Commission is to this request, I will have such consultations as are necessary to make certain that full and


adequate opportunity is afforded to people to make representations, to have them considered, and, if recommendations be made, published.

Mr. Peake: I think the Committee is in danger of getting into inextricable confusion on this matter. It is quite clear that, having made their official report, the Boundary Commission have completed their task and discharged the functions laid upon them by Parliament by Section 3 of the 1944 Act. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to invite the Commission to consider certain proposals which are to be found in Amendments to the Schedule to this Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has tabled. The only statutory power which the right hon. Gentleman can invoke to enable the Commission to consider these matters at all is to found in Subsection (3) of Section 4 of the 1944 Act. That Subsection reads:
Any Boundary Commission may also from time to time submit to the Secretary of State reports with respect to the area comprised in any particular constituency or constituencies in the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned.
Under Section 4 of the 1944 Act, before they can make any such report as I have described under Subsection (3), the Commission have first, under Subsection (4), to give notice in writing to the Secretary of State and a copy of the notice has to be published. Of course, the Commission, if they are willing to comply with his request, can easily enough come within the conditions laid down in Subsection (4). They can give notice in writing to the right hon. Gentleman that they intend to consider making a report under this Section. But if the right hon. Gentleman goes further and reads Subsection (5) of Section 4 of the 1944 Act he will see these words:
As soon as may be after the Boundary Commission have submitted a report to the Secretary of State under this Section——
and it is projected that they shall make a report under Section 4,
the Home Secretary shall lay the report before Parliament together with the draft of an Order in Council for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report.
At that stage, when the right hon. Gentleman gets what in fact will be the report from the Boundary Commission under Subsection (3) of Section 4 of the 1944 Act, the only thing he can do with that

report is to lay it before Parliament, together with a draft Order in Council.
That is not at all what he intends to do. When he gets this report, as I understand it, he does not intend to accompany it with a draft Order in Council. What he proposes to do is to go ahead with his amendment to the Schedule. It seems to me that he will be asking the Commission to undertake a task for which they have no statutory authority, and if they do undertake it, they will land him in the difficulty that he is compelled by statute to proceed thereafter by Order in Council and not by amendment to the Schedule of the Bill.
Therefore, I think that we are in danger of getting into great confusion on this matter, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will have to give much more thought to this subject than he has done hitherto if he is going to get the Commission to act, not within the scope of some statutory ruling, but in an unofficial way, to undertake the examination of the Amendments he has proposed to the Schedules, and to consider objections brought forward by parties concerned in the constituencies affected by his proposals.

Mr. Marlowe: I would like to reinforce the argument which has just been put by my right hon. Friend, and to draw attention to what has happened in this particular case. The right hon. Gentleman is in the difficulty in which he at present finds himself solely because he has not had proper regard to the rights created in the 1944 Act. The Lord President of the Council told us, in effect, that we have not brought ourselves within the statute, but we have done something like it. The Government have done that before by not having a full appreciation of the rule of law; so often we have heard the Government say, "Well, leave it to us; we will operate it all right without having it included in the Bill in a well-defined manner."
The Lord President of the Council has agreed that the proper procedure has not been followed, and that is the reason the Home Secretary find himself in the position in which he is. He can only do what he is going to do by ignoring the 1944 Act; he cannot do what he is proposing and, at the same time, have proper regard to his statutory powers under the Act. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman must have regard to


those statutory powers, and before we leave this Clause, I must reiterate what has been said about the sense of shame which right hon. and hon. Members opposite should feel at the manner in which they have dealt with their obligations. If this Clause is passed, it will be a monument of infamy to the right hon. Gentleman. It is a shameful thing that, for a political advantage, in this Clause he should have sacrificed his reputation for fair dealing.

Mr. Ede: Denunciation from some people is the best compliment one can receive and if I may say so, I therefore welcome the denunciation which I have just received from the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe). If I may refer for a moment to the remark made a few minutes ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), that we are in danger of getting into great confusion on this matter on this side of the Committee, I would remind him that it is perfectly competent for me, within my general powers, to have inquiries held into any representations made to me with regard to this matter. I would prefer, and I imagine that all hon. Members would prefer, that these inquiries should be held by people who, over a period of time, have gained the accumulated experience of the Boundary Commissioners. I am advised that there is no difficulty in this matter. I have promised that I will consult with the right hon. Gentleman, and such of his colleagues as may be associated with him on this issue, as to the way this can be carried out, and there is no doubt that, in time for the making of any Amendments necessary in later stages of the Bill, we shall be able to get the benefit of the advice, if needed, of the Commissioners, and some other person, or persons, competent to deal with these matters.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Manningharn-Buller: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should suggest that there is any confusion on this side of the Committee as to the state of the law.

Mr. Ede: I did not say "on the state of the law." There has been very little law talked.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be getting more and

more polite. There was some confusion, and as we were discussing a question largely of law, I thought that he meant that, but apparently it was something else; and again he failed to make himself clear. He did say that he would invite the Boundary Commission to consider this. I would like him to deal with this point, because if there was any confusion on his side, it was because of lack of clarity in his remarks. He said there would have to be some other machinery. If the Boundary Commission say that they cannot, under their present statutory powers, do what he wants them to do, he would then create some ad hoc machinery. If that is what is in his mind, it means that there is a real possibility that there will be an inquiry, or representations made to people set up by Parliament and having jurisdiction in this matter, and that representations will be made to some other people chosen by him and coming direct to him. That is quite a different thing from saying that the Boundary Commission will have jurisdiction in respect of these nine cities.
What I would like to ask of the Home Secretary, with the greatest civility and, I hope, clarity, is an assurance that, if the Boundary Commission say that under the existing statutes they have not got the power to do what he wants them to do, he will take immediate steps to see that they are given the necessary powers, because I do not think that, after all that has happened, it will be regarded as satisfactory in all quarters if it is known that the representations are not to be considered by an impartial statutory body, such as the Boundary Commissioners, but by a body appointed by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ede: We can see now where we are getting to. The hon. and learned Gentleman spent a great deal of time trying to prove that the Boundary Commissioners could not do this. I am not going to ask them to do this in their statutory capacity. I am going to ask them whether they will be willing to undertake the task that we desire to be performed of hearing such representations as may be made. I believe that these gentlemen act just as efficiently whether they act in their statutory capacity or in their non-statutory capacity, and I am not going to be drawn into the kind of sophistication into which


the hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to lure me.

Mr. P. Roberts: Will the Home Secretary answer my point whether constituencies of 40,000 would be within the electoral quota under the provision?

Mr. Ede: That would he a matter for the Commissioners to consider. There are in the White Paper, in certain cities, constituencies of just over 40,000.

Mr. Pickthorn: The right hon. Gentleman said in his last sentence of his last speech but one that he was going to ask these gentlemen to act in their non-statutory capacity. I had not been aware that they had a non-statutory capacity. Waiving the form of words, may I put this question to him? It clearly is not fair to ask them, if he means to ask them as mere individuals, to do something in such a way that it is impossible to refuse, because that is not asking people to do something, but directing them in matters in which there are no statutory duties. I want to ask him what will he tell them if upon his asking them to act in their non-statutory capacity they indicate unwillingness? What happens then?

Mr. Ede: I do not believe in crossing bridges until I come to them; nor do I believe in swimming rivers until I get to them. I shall make this request to the Boundary Commissioners and I do not think that tonight I am obliged to assume that they will refuse. The request will not be in any way a concealed order. I want to make that quite clear. It will be a request and nothing more.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move:
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
I move this Motion with a view to obtaining some statement from the right hon. Gentleman as to how far he intends to go with this Measure tonight.

Mr. Dalton: Until six o'clock.

Mr. Peake: We are coming to a series of Clauses of immense constitutional importance dealing with the registration of Parliamentary electors, the right of the Service voter to vote, and the place and

manner of voting at Parliamentary elections; and I really think it is hardly decent that we should conduct the Debate on these important constitutional matters throughout the night. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make some statement as to how far he intends to go and at what hour he intends we should stop discussing this Bill.

Mr. Ede: The Government hope to get quite a way through the Bill during the course of this Sitting. It is, I think, a bit early to say exactly how far we hope to go, how far we expect to get through the Bill, and how long we intend to sit. I think these things will depend upon such developments as may take place during the discussions on the next few Amendments. I hope that the Committee feel that we can safely give a very considerable amount of attention yet to the Bill during this Sitting. I hope we shall be able to make very considerable progress during the Sitting.

Sir Ian Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the evening papers it is suggested that a plan has been made by the Government Whips to sit until 6 o'clock in the morning, and that on the radio, which I happened to hear at 9 o'clock, it was stated that the Lobby Correspondent understood that the Government expected to get all the stages of this Bill and, therefore, that the Sitting would be late—probably all night? Is there any authority for these statements?

Mr. Ede: I have not had the advantage of seeing the evening papers and certainly there is no intention of getting all the stages of the Bill tonight—although that is what we would like to do.

Sir I. Fraser: My question was not whether the right hon. Gentleman had seen the papers, but whether there was any authority for these statements.

Mr. Ede: No, not as far as I know. I have consulted the Patronage Secretary, who assures me that there is no authority for any such statements. We suggest that the Committee should continue the discussion of the Bill and see how far we can get. It may depend upon the progress we are able to make what hour we shall be able to rise.

Mr. Peake: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to be a little more definite upon this matter. The Com-


mittee are entitled to a fairly clear statement of the right hon. Gentleman's intentions, and I think it is positively indecent that on a constitutional Measure of this importance the progress of the Bill should develop into a test of endurance. If only the right hon. Gentleman would say plainly that he wants to get to the end of a certain Clause by a certain time tonight we might do something to facilitate the progress of the Bill, but if he leaves the matter completely at large then we are bound to press him hard upon every Clause and upon every Amendment.

Mr. Ede: This is not the first time when the right hon. Gentleman has been in the House when the Rule has been suspended on the Committee stage of a Bill.

Mr. Pickthorn: A redistribution Bill?

Mr. Ede: I would suggest that what I have said is a perfectly reasonable attitude to adopt. It seems that I am now stirring the Opposition junior Whips almost into eloquence. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that we should see what progress we can make, and then it will be possible a little later to discuss the exact length of time which it may he necessary to sit and the number of Clauses that we might expect to be able to get during the Sitting.

Mr. Peake: I can only say that I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is so obdurate; I am afraid that progress will not be very rapid under the circumstances.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would like to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. Many of us spent a great deal of last night and the early part of this morning sitting here to finish the Palestine Bill in all its stages at one Sitting which we thought was far too prolonged and which went on until 3 o'clock this morning. We think it is unreasonable for the Government Business to be run in this manner. There ought to have been more time given to the Palestine Bill so that we could have discussed the Third Reading today. Instead of that, we were asked to finish the whole of the Palestine Bill, and to sit until 3 o'clock this morning. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is not only we who suffer from this extraordinary method of conducting Government Busi-

ness, but also the staff and the officials of the House who have to stay here until a late hour and very often find it difficult to get home. I honestly do not think the dignity of Parliament is improved if we have to do business at this late hour. I think the right hon. Gentleman would be wise to indicate the Clause or part of the Bill That he would like to reach tonight, because it would be much easier to do the business conscientiously than turn it into a feat of endurance, as my right hon. Friend has suggested.

Mr. Ede: I thought I had made quite a reasonable suggestion. I was here throughout the Sitting yesterday, and I stayed almost until the end. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there was a very considerable discussion during yesterday, which was carried on very largely by a small minority in the House. I am not attempting to excuse what happened yesterday, but I am suggesting that we should sit for a little longer and see how far we can get. I am quite willing during that time to have a discussion with the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), to see if we can agree on the part of the Bill that we should try to reach by a certain time. If we could reach agreement on that point, I should hope that we should be able to make some considerable progress with the Bill during the present Sitting.

Mr. H. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman said he had consulted the Patronage Secretary, but I wonder if he also consulted the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). When the question, "How long are we going to sit?" was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland shouted, "Until 6 o'clock." On this Bill his prophecies have been so frequently correct that the Committee is very much interested as to whether, on this question, the Home Secretary has received his instructions from him or if he is giving information to the right hon. Gentleman. Could the Home Secretary give us any enlightenment on that?

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: I looked in tonight expecting to find that substantial progress had been made with the Bill.

Mr. H. Strauss: Are those the right hon. Gentleman's instructions?

Mr. Dalton: I was astonished to learn that Clause 3 has not yet been passed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes it has."]. That was the position when I came into the Chamber. I can only conclude that the Debate on Clause 3 has been greatly prolonged by speeches from the Opposition side of the Committee. I am sure that I shall not be alone in assuring my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of the willingness of Members on the Government side of the Committee to sit, if need be, until 6 o'clock—the time I mentioned —in order to make reasonable progress with this Bill. I am quite willing on this, as on other occasions, to follow the lead of my right hon. Friend. He has been extremely reasonable in his handling of the Bill, and he has listened to suggestions from all parts of the Committee. I can assure him of the consistent support which he will receive from a substantial majority of this Committee however long he may decide to continue.

Mr. Peake: In view of the assurance of the Home Secretary that the Committee will not sit more than a little longer, and that during the remainder of the time the right hon. Gentleman would meet me behind Mr. Speaker's Chair for an informal discussion, I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Ede: I am sorry for the moment to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from withdrawing his Motion, but I must say that I never used the phrase "a little longer."

Mr. Butler: When I intervened I put some serious considerations before the Committee, and in reponse to my representations the right hon. Gentleman definitely used the expression that we should sit a little longer. He also, said, after that remark, that he would discuss the situation with my right hon. Friend. That was a reasonable approach, and my right hon. Friend was quite right to take it up; and ask the right hon. Gentleman to adhere to his statement.

Mr. Ede: If I used the phrase "a little longer" it was with the idea that we should see during that period what progress we were making and that, during that period, I should have a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) to see if we could devise some limit both to the

number of Clauses we might be expected to get and the sitting time it would take to get them.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Before this Motion is withdrawn, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) whether. he has again treated us to one of his now famous indiscretions. He said that Clause 3 had been passed, and it had not—[HON. MEMBERS: "The other way round."]—In the case of an insignificant back bencher an indiscretion such as I have just made is of no account, but when made by a distinguished gentleman like the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) it is of some account. I would just like to ask if the Committee can be informed if, with this indiscretion, the right hon. Gentleman has committed the further indiscretion of giving information to the Press? Obviously, they got it from somewhere, and it seems that the most likely source of that information was the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland.

Mr. Peake: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 4.—(Registration officers and areas.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 4, line 29, at the beginning, to insert:
(1) For the registration of electors there shall be electoral registration officers (in this Act referred to as 'registration officers').
The purpose of this Amendment is to make clear that where the phrase "registration officer" is used in this Bill, as it has been used in past statutes, it refers only to electoral registration officers. It is considered necessary to insert these words to avoid confusion with registration officers of other kinds.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 5, line 14, to leave out from "Subsection," to "the," in line 15.
This is purely a drafting Amendment. The words which it is proposed to leave out are, I am advised, unnecessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Register of electors.)

Mr. Mulvey: I beg to move, in page 5, line 33, to leave out from the beginning, to "register," in line 37, and to insert "the annual."
There is a further Amendment in page 5, line 40, which relates to the same subject. These Amendments seek to get an annual register of voters for Northern Ireland instead of the two provided for in the Bill. Circumstances in the preparation of voters' lists in Northern Ireland are entirely different from those in this country. We have no large industrial areas as there are in England and Scotland, and the country is largely an agricultural area. Great difficulty is experienced in the preparation of a voters' register, and greater difficulty would be caused if they were obliged to have two registers in the same year. There are many difficulties in the present arrangements for party agents and for the people entrusted with this work.
We have not had a biennial register in Northern Ireland. There are three registers of voters to be compiled in Northern Ireland—the register for this House; the register of voters for the Northern Ireland Parliament, in which the franchise law is entirely different from the law in this country; and the register of voters for local government purposes. The law regarding the franchise in Northern Ireland is entirely different from that in this country. People are deprived of votes and, furthermore, certain ex-Service men are deprived of votes under the local government franchise. All these matters mean that considerable time is taken in the preparation of a register. I would be in favour of two registers if my hon. Friends opposite would agree to a franchise on the same democratic basis as in this country, but I somehow feel that neither they nor the Conservative Party in Northern Ireland will agree with me on that point.
In the absence of agreement, I say that one register of voters could effectively be carried out in Northern Ireland The work could be well done with one register. I am satisfied that hon. and right hon. Members opposite agree with me on this matter—and we do not agree on many subjects, particularly with regard to governmental affairs in Northern Ireland. Taking into consideration all the matters I have endeavoured to mention, I ask the Home Secretary to accept this Amend-

ment and provide for one annual register in Northern Ireland.

Sir Ronald Ross: I rise to support my hon. and temporary Friend the Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey). It is often said by people in England that they wish to see people in Ireland sinking their political differences. Why that view should be expressed by those who have so many political differences in England, I cannot follow. There are certain people who try to stir up as much trouble as possible between two parties. In this particular instance, we have what some people have looked for in vain—that is, complete unanimity between my hon. Friend who has just spoken and my hon. and right hon. Friends who represent the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland.
The position in Northern Ireland is indistinguishable, as regards the matter of registration, from the position in England. There is always said to be in Englishmen a regrettable lack of an appreciation that anyone could be different from themselves. It is always said that our difficulties in China are due to the inability of the Foreign Secretary to understand that it is inhabited by Chinamen. There is a difference on the part of English Ministers even on matters of detail on which we agree, and certainly we are sufficiently violently divided on political points that agreement should be considered rather remarkable.
It never was the practice to have two registers in Ireland until fairly recently. The 1918 Act provided for two registers in England, but only one in Ireland. That was at a time when the whole of Ireland was represented in this Parliament, and at that time no one even suggested that this practice should be extended to Ireland. It is still quite unsuitable, because the interesting feature about the register in Ireland is that it is taken very seriously. What unites the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone and myself is that we have each objected to the other appearing on the voters' register. The hon. Member would do his best to get me struck off, and I would equally do my best to get him struck off.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]—If it cuts one way, it cuts the other.
11.30 p.m.
The point is, that this matter is dealt with far more strictly in Northern Ireland


than here. There are quantities of objections, and also there are people in the polling booths to see that there is no dual voting. In the majority Report of the Committee on Electoral Registration there is a most curious feature. I would remind the Home Secretary that in the Report of that Committee there was a very marked difference of opinion, and that all those who had previous knowledge of Northern Ireland before they visited that country represented the position which is embodied in this Amendment. I do not think I am doing them an injustice, but I believe that those who wrote the majority opinion on this matter did not have any knowledge of Northern Ireland, or of any part of Northern Ireland, before they went there to inquire into this matter.
They take a most extraordinary attitude as regards the objections. They say that there is a large number of objections, far more than are ever made in England, and they say that many of those objections, they were told, are made on principle. They state that they do not think objections of this type deserve encouragement. I should have thought that objections made on principle deserved a certain amount of encouragement. A good many of these objections succeed, and a substantial proportion are genuine. They then proceed to enunciate their method of stopping the making of objections by having so many registrations that every one would be exhausted, and would not bother to make objections.
I would suggest, however, that they are taking too optimistic a view. The fact is that there has to be a secondary register for the Government of Northern Ireland. Therefore, this suggestion would mean making three registers in the year. The vast majority of the voters, Unionist and Nationalist, consider that one is sufficient. It was the practice for years while there were two registrations in England. There was never any objection to it. Therefore, it seems fantastic that, in the mere pursuit of uniformity, this should be suggested in the Bill. I quote a passage from the minority Report of the Committee on Electoral Registration:
To require that in such circumstances the arrangements for Northern Ireland should be brought into step with those for Great Britain would be to exact uniformity at a quite disproportionate cost in labour and money, and would be of no sufficiently useful purpose. We are supported in our view by the evidence

taken in Northern Ireland, where not only the two largest parties, the Unionists and the Nationalists, but also the registration officials, favour only one register a year.
I cannot see any argument that can be usefully adduced to counteract that portion of the Report. Practically everybody associated with politics, and the disinterested parties concerned in the preparation of the register, consider that one is sufficient. It has been the practice for many years. The result of having two registrations, combined with the third, which is necessary because of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, would be that there would be an almost unending registration session. It would involve a substantial expenditure to no useful purpose. I hope that, in view of this unanimity, the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment, and that he will not tell us that those who do not know conditions in Ireland, know most about what is the best thing to do there.

Mr. Younger: I sympathise very much with the Irishman's well-known desire to be different. I am afraid, however, that this is an Amendment which my right hon. Friend feels he should not accept. As the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) said, this matter was discussed in some detail by the Committee on Electoral Registration, and there was a difference of opinion. The account which the hon. Member gave of conditions in which a register is compiled in Northern Ireland is perhaps alarming, but he said that the matter of getting on the register was taken very seriously. If that is the case, as I have no doubt that it is, I should have thought that all hon. Members who come from Northern Ireland, no matter what their political views may be, would have wished that the register upon which they would be elected to thi4 House should be as good and up to date as those for other parts of the Kingdom and for all other Members of this House.
The majority view taken by the Committee on Electoral Registration was that the need for a uniform and up-to-date register was paramount. They appreciated that there were certain difficulties peculiar to Northern Ireland, but there was a passage in the majority opinion, which was not quoted by the hon. Gentleman, in which the view was expressed that the administrative arrangements for compiling the register could


be substantially improved, and that many of the objections raised on the ground of practical difficulty were objections which could be met if there was the will to have them met. I submit that it is reasonable that, as all hon. Members who come here are on an equal footing, no matter from what area they come, they should be elected upon the same basis. There is no reason why any area which elects Members to this Parliament should not make suitable arrangements to have an equally up-to-date register.

Sir. R. Ross: Because he is a member of the richest political party, perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not mind about money, but as both the Unionist and Nationalist Parties have a good deal less money at their disposal, he should consider their interests. Can the hon. Gentleman quote any instance when there was any complaint on the ground he has mentioned during the many years when there was one register in Ireland and two in England?

Mr. Gage: This is a unique occasion in the history of the House of Commons, because it must be almost the first occasion on which the Nationalists and Unionists have agreed together on a particular matter which they desired to set before hon. Members. It is, therefore, all the more regrettable to find the Under-Secretary, in a rather rusty and somewhat reactionary speech, rejecting their views and so, I suppose, dashing for ever any hope of unity in Ireland. This Amendment is put forward on serious and important grounds because in Northern Ireland the vote, unlike the vote in England, is regarded by these politically well educated people as an asset to be used, and not, as in England, to be lightly cast 'aside at election after election.
In fact in the constituency of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) I am told that practically everyone votes, both the living and the dead. It was not so long ago that there were only six people in that constituency who did not vote and they were known in the constituency as the "six rusty voters." As you will see, Mr. Diamond, the matter of elections and politics in Northern Ireland is taken seriously and not, as in this country, flippantly and lightly, so that the matter of

the register has to be seriously considered. It takes a considerable time to prepare a register because it is scrutinised carefully by each party to see that no person gets on to it improperly and so that objections may be taken in good order. It is not taken lightly as in this country, and speedily disposed of. We have to consider these matters because politics are important in our country, as we know that the government of ourselves is a matter which affects us.
As almost anyone in Northern Ireland would say, the preparation of a register at present is only just got through in a year by the time all the objections are heard. If we have to have two registers, it will put, not the parties—and this plea is not made on behalf of parties—but the unfortunate administrative officials who have to prepare the register in the greatest possible difficulty. It would be quite impossible to prepare two registers in so short a space of time. Therefore I hope the Government will reconsider the matter. 'There is a ground for drawing a distinction between the independent people of Northern Ireland and the rather dull apathetic voters in England, Scotland, and Wales. In Northern Ireland we should have one register in the year which we could consider carefully. Here, let them have as many registers as they wish, but in Northern Ireland all parties there who consider this matter carefully, desire to have one register. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, who is very reasonable in these matters, will consider it again and accede to our modest and reasonable request.

Mr. Delargy: This Amendment rather bewilders me, as a simple Member for an English constituency. Precisely why the people of Northern Ireland should want only one register instead of two I cannot possibly understand, but it seems they do. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) are of the same opinion I feel it would be most impertinent for this Committee not to concur. I am sorry that last week the hon. Member for Londonderry was not of the same opinion as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone, or he might have been allowed to speak in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. For once in a while, these two gentlemen


for reasons which completely escape me, are in agreement, and why the Government should refuse this extraordinary agreement between the two really puzzles me. But there is a second reason why I am very much in favour of this Amendment. The Unionists in Northern Ireland have always pretended that they would march in step with whatever Government was in power in Great Britain.

Sir R. Ross: So long as it was a sensible Government.

Mr. Delargy: Yes, so long as it was a sensible Government, but what the hon. Baronet means is "so long as it was a Conservative Government." Now we have on the Front Bench a democratic Labour Government, the Unionists proceed to march out of step; so many laws on the other side of the Channel have decided not to be in step with what is agreed here. The Unionists wish to march in step with the Government for once in a while, and I am on their side and will support them in their reasonable demand for the people of Northern Ireland.

11.45 p.m.

Sir P. Hannon: I do not wish to detain the Committee but we must not lose this great opportunity of conceding the undivided wishes of Members from Northern Ireland constituencies. It is the first time in my long experience of the House of Commons that I have seen my fellow countrymen coming together and demanding, in unison, a concession from the Home Secretary. It has been called a reasonable demand. Why should these fellow countrymen of mine have imposed on them the expense of two registers. when one would secure a fair and square and honest representation of the people? Surely, we must not lose this opportunity of helping Irish affairs when they come our way, and I strongly support the appeal that this concession be made by the Home Secretary.
If I were asked to say to which of our leading statesmen I would appeal for common sense on a particular subject, I would select the Home Secretary as the exponent of that fine quality. I acknowledge the extent to which he enjoys the distinction of being known for always taking honest and just decisions on questions submitted to this House. I submit that here is an opportunity of taking an action which would

be regarded as the most thoughtful we have taken for a long time for Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman recently brought forward his Northern Ireland Bill, and there were differences of opinion, but here is a different case, where both sides of the Committee are of the same opinion. This is a chance to test the right hon. Gentleman's statesmanship in doing something really worth while in Irish affairs.

Mr. Bing: Representatives of Northern Ireland are unanimous on this subject, but as the Government will not accept it I would suggest a compromise. The problem is that it is necessary to have registers, one for the Northern Ireland Election, and one for the British Election. If we could have the same register for both, no more registers would be needed, but the one could be brought up to date every six months. But the party opposite depends on the business vote in Northern Ireland, and if I may, I would like to give some figures for the constituency of the hon. Baronet who sits for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross). In the Tory area represented by the Unionists in the British Parliament, there are 35 business votes on the register. For the Northern Ireland Parliament there are 1,072. This is because, in Northern Ireland, the business man or company is worth six votes. I' have no figures for Down. I am glad to see the junior Member for the County of Down (Lieut. Mullan). It is a pleasure to know that he makes a special point, when he is in London, of looking in at the House.

Sir R. Ross: To return the compliment, may I say how glad we are to see the hon. Member in our constituencies? He is always a great help.

Mr. Bing: I do not want to be distracted. I have just asserted a constitutional principle. It was laid down, and has since been confirmed that Members of Parliament have responsibility for the whole country, and the fact is that we have as much responsibility for Northern Ireland as any other Parliament. That is why I am intervening. It would be unreasonable to suggest that the Northern Ireland Government should abandon the advantage of the business vote as it would make far too much an inroad on their majority, but what I am suggesting is that any one worthy of voting in the


British Parliament should also be entitled to vote in the Northern Ireland Parliament.
If we take the Derry side we find that there are only 27,007 residential electors registered for the Northern Ireland Parliament while for the British Parliament there are 28,350. It is a difference of only 1,350—ex-Servicemen and a few people like that, who cannot qualify for the rather strict list in Northern Ireland. 'Would it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to appeal to the Northern Ireland Government to enfranchise these people who have some residential qualifications, and ask that there be a special business vote?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Diamond): I have allowed the hon. Gentleman considerable latitude, and I would be

Division No. 109.]
AYES.
[11.54 p.m.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Dodds, N. N.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Donovan, T.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Alpass, J. H.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)


Attewell, H. C.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Austin, H. Lewis
Dumpleton, C. W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Durbin, E. F. M.
Janner, B.


Bacon, Miss A.
Dye, S.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Baird, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Balfour, A
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Johnston, D. H.


Barton, C
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Berry, H.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Beswick, F.
Fairhurst, F.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Bing, G. H. C.
Farthing, W. J.
Keenan, W


Binns, J.
Fernyhough, E.
Kenyon, C.


Blackburn, A. R
Field, Capt. W. J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Blenkinsop, A.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E)
Levy, B. W.


Boardman, H.
Foot, M M
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Bottomley, A. G.
Fraser, T (Hamilton)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Lindgren, G. S.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Longden, F.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gibson, C. W.
Lyne, A. W.


Bramall, E. A.
Gilzean, A.
McGhee, H. G


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
McGovern, J.


Brown, George (Belper)
Greenwood, A W. J. (Heywood)
Mack, J. D.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
McLeavy, F.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Gunter, R. J.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Byers, Frank
Guy, W. H.
Marquand, H. A.


Callaghan, James
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hale, Leslie
Mayhew, C. P.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mellish, R. J.


Champion, A. J.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R
Middleton, Mrs. L


Chetwynd, G. R
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mikardo, Ian


Cobb, F. A.
Hardman, D. R
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R


Collindridge, F.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mitchison, G. R


Collins, V. J.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Monslow, W.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'welt, N.W.)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Moody, A. S


Crawley, A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Morley, R.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hewitson, Capt. M
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Daggar, G.
Hobson, C. R.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Daines, P.
Holman, P.
Moyle, A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
House, G.
Nally, W.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hoy, J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hughes, H D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

grateful if he would return to the Amendment.

Mr. Bing: I am sorry. I was only trying to seek a means of compromise. What I was suggesting was that we might postpone consideration of this matter until the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity of consulting the Northern Ireland Government, and asking them to admit to the franchise the people at present disenfranchised. In that case we could have the two registers a year, and no one would be disabused. I do not know whether the junior Member for Tyrone and Fermanagh (Mr. Mulvey) would accept that, but I hope the Home Secretary will.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 24o; Noes, 83.

Oliver, G. H
Sharp, Granville
Warbey, W. N


Orbach, M.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Watkins, T. E.


Paget, R. T.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Palmer, A. M. F
Shurmer, P
Weitzman, D.


Pargiter, G. A
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Parker, J.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Parkin, B. T.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
West, D. G.


Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Snow, J. W
Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Solley, L. J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Pearson, A.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wigg, George


Peart, T. F.
Soskice, Sir Frank
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Perrins, W
Sparks, J. A
Wilkes, L.


Piratin, P.
Steele, T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Stubbs, A. E.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Price, M. Philips
Sylvester, G. O
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Pritt, D. N.
Symonds, A. L.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Randall, H. E
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Ranger, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Rankin, J.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Willis, E.


Rees-Williams, D. R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Reeves, J.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Reid, T (Swindon)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Rhodes, H.
Thurtle, Ernest
Wyatt, W.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Tiffany, S.
Yates, V. F.


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Tolley, L.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Rogers, G. H. R.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Zilliacus, K.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.



Royle, C.
Vernon, Maj. W. F
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Scollan, T
Wadsworth, G.
Mr. Simmons and


Segal, Dr. S
Walkden, E.
Mr. Richard Adams.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)





NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Mullan, Lt. C. H.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gage, C.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Odey, G. W.


Astor, Hon. M.
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H


Baldwin, A. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Orr-Ewing, I L.


Baxter, A. B.
Grimslon, R. V.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Harmon, Sir P. (Moselev)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Pickthorn, K.


Bossom, A. C.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Prescott, Stanley


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Keeling, E. H.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bullock, Capt. M
Kendall, W. D.
Robinson, Roland


Butcher, H W
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H
Ropner, Col. L.


Challen, C.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Spearman, A. C. M


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Spence, H. R.


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Studholme, H. G.


Cunningham, P.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Maclean, F. H. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Davidson, Viscountess
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G. C.


Delargy, H. J.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Drayson, G. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Drewe, C
Marsden, Capt. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Duthie, W. S
Maude, J. C.



Erroll, F. J.
Medlicott, Brigadier F
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Mellor, Sir J.
Mr. Mulvey and




Sir Ronald Ross.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, at the end, to insert:
and where any part of the register used at an election is a part continued in force by this Subsection this Act shall have effect in relation to the election and the area to which that part relates as if the qualifying date by reference to which that part was prepared were the qualifying date for the election.
Clause 5 (3) provides that if the register is not published on the due date the old register continues in force until the day after the new register is published. That

means that an election may, in certain circumstances, necessarily have to take place on an old register. It is, however, further necessary to provide that in that event those who are entitled to vote at an election are those who were resident on the qualifying date of the old register, and not on the qualifying date of the new one which should really have been used had it been available. That is owing to the provisions of Subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that where the old


register is used it is the qualifying date of the old register which is effective in respect of that election.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Under-Secretary has referred to the old register. As far as I can see the old register may be very old indeed. It may be years old or it may be a register which is in force now. There is nothing, as I see it, under this Clause, to provide for the replacement of the old register other than by putting the duty on the registration officer to see that the register now in force carries on not only after the next election, whenever that may be, but for the election after that. Does not that mean that the qualifying date under this paragraph becomes entirely unreal, because when the election after this one takes place the electors entitled to vote under this Clause will be those who have qualified under the register now in force? This opens up a rather serious aspect. I may have overlooked it, but can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is any sanction that the existing register will, in fact, be replaced.
One would think, looking at this Clause at first sight, that the old register is merely one which is brought into existence under this provision at the time that an election takes place. It may be that that old register is often out-of-date. Is there a sanction to prevent that happening? Might it not be under this Amendment, that the qualifying date is three or four years before the date of the election? If that be so it may involve considerable difficulties. Can we be quite sure that the qualifying date will not be so far before the election can take place? This Amendment seems to provide that we can go on operating on a register no matter how old that register may be, and no matter how long ago the qualifying date may be.

Mr. Younger: If I correctly understood the hon. and learned Gentleman his suggestion was there is no sanction under this Bill to ensure that the register will be made up and subsequently kept up-to-date in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. The provisions of Clause 5 put the duty on the registration officer, which is as much as can be done by statute. All the Amendment is doing is to ensure that if the latest register, which should,

in accordance with the terms of the Bill, be ready at a certain date, has not become ready, and an election takes place, it will take place on the last available register no matter how old it may be. It seems reasonable to say, however, that the effective qualifying date should be the one relating to that register and not to some other register. The difficulty is rather unreal, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted it will be quite unreal after the first register has been compiled under this Bill, so that it would only be a transitional difficulty. I do not think there is very much in it.

Mr. Solley: I wish to speak not about the merits of the Amendment, but to complain that it is drafted in language which it is almost impossible to understand. It is right to draw attention to a legal rigmarole which is misleading to the ordinary person. In four lines the word "Bill" is repeated four times, and "election" three times. There is the phrase "this subsection this Act" without a comma between the first two and the second two words. I defy anybody, judge or lawyer, to understand this without detailed study. I think it is wrong in principle to bring before the Committee an Amendment of this sort which is not phrased in ordinary understandable English.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Under-Secretary has, I am glad to say, uttered a few words about this rather obscure Amendment. If an election is to take place on the old register because the new one which ought to be prepared has not been completed, owing to the registration officer having been unable to fulfil the duty cast upon him, why is it necessary that the qualifying date under the old register should be the qualifying date under this Measure? Why is it necessary to add this when it is said that if the new register is not prepared in time, the old register will suffice?

Mr. Younger: The Amendment is necessary because of the provisions of Clause 1, (2) and (3). By Subsection (2), persons entitled to vote at an election are those resident in a constituency at the qualifying date, and Subsection (3) provides that the qualifying date is determined by reference to the date of the poll. In these conditions it was necessary to move this Amendment.

Colonel Gomme-Dunean: I appeal to the Minister in support of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley). This provision might be translated into English for the benefit of the ordinary reader. Why have we to put up with this stuff when we could have it in language which most people could understand?

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 6, line 6, to leave out "an elector" and to insert "electors."
If the Committee will read the words as they now stand they will see it reads:
all persons who may be entitled to vote as an elector.
That seems to be execrable English—if it has any sense at all. I suggest that the Home Secretary should use the same words as are used in Clause 24.

Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend is prepared to accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 6, line 15, to leave out from "registered" to the end of line 17.
The Committee will see that that will exclude the words in brackets in Subsection (5, a). If left in, these words in brackets will make it impossible for registration officers who are to carry out the house-to-house inquiry to make any inquiries at all about Service voters. We do not quite see the reasons this provision is inserted. Registration officers have a great deal of difficulty in keeping the Service voters list up-to-date. One of the difficulties they encounter is that these registers contain a large number of names of Service voters who will probably never return to that constituency again on their release, and those names clutter up the register. If in the house-to-house inquiry it were possible to look into this, it would considerably help in cleaning up the register.
There is another point about it as well; it would also be a help in getting removed from the Service register names of those who have been released from the Services, a matter in which there is delay at the present moment. Our object in seeking to delete these words is to make it easier for registration officers to keep

the list up to date as regards the Service voters. Having put the position quite briefly, and I hope the Home Secretary will give the Amendment favourable consideration, or tell us why the inquiry is not allowed to deal with this matter.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Ede: This Subsection requires a registration officer to have sufficient inquiry made as to the persons entitled to be registered, excluding persons appearing to him to be entitled to be registered in pursuance of a Service declaration. So the words the hon. Gentleman proposes to leave out are confined to the Service voters. The duty of getting Service voters on the register is placed by Subsection (4) on somebody else. It is the duty of the commanding officers to see that Service voters have the opportunity of making their declarations, and they are registered in respect of their declarations.
It was found that under the 1918 Act Service voters were not excluded from the canvass. In fact, what happened was that there was a number of duplicate registrations. It is very undesirable that there should be duplicate registrations—duplicate entries on the register—and we feel that the duty placed upon commanding officers to see that the men under them have the opportunity of making their declaration, and of seeing that the declaration is forwarded to the appropriate registration officer, solves this particular problem. As a result of the canvass, some person resident in a house might claim that a certain Service voter should be registered there; but he might make his declaration, as he is entitled to do, in respect of some other place, and he would then be on the register for the place where his name had been returned for the canvass and for the place where he had made his declaration. Now, he is entitled to exercise his choice as to where he can be registered for a vote, and it would appear desirable, therefore, that we should rely upon his declaration, and not on the canvass, to ensure that he gets his name on the register.

Mr. Grimston: The Home Secretary, I think, has not quite grasped the point I tried to make in putting this matter forward. I quite see his argument from the point of view of getting the names on to the register. We consider that this inquiry would be useful in enabling the registration officer to see that the names


on the register ought still to be there. The trouble, as I am advised, is that a great many names remain on the register far longer than they should do, either because the man has himself chosen to register somewhere else or has been registered from the Forces. If the registration officer were allowed to make some inquiry, he could probably save a great deal of trouble and assist in the register being kept clear of names that should not be there any longer. It is for that reason that I suggest there is no reason why the registration officer should not be required to make inquiries about Service votes.

Mr. Ede: I will see whether it is necessary to have, by canvass or other means, some arrangement whereby the registration officer can ensure that Service voters no longer entitled to vote by reason of residence can be removed from the register. I think the arrangement proposed in the Amendment would probably lead to Service voters being registered in more than one place. I admit that it is desirable to make sure that persons no longer having any connection with the premises should be removed from the register. If it is necessary to do anything in the matter, I will undertake to do it on the Report stage.

Captain Marsden: I think that the Home Secretary has overlooked one or two other possibilities. The Service voter has to make a declaration as to where he would be living if he were in this country. He may be abroad, and his home may have been broken up. He may have no address anywhere. He puts down on the form an address, some street and number, of which he has at some time or other heard, or knows of, to qualify for the declaration. Therefore, if the registration officer goes to the house and finds that the people there know nothing of the Service man, it would appear, if the Home Secretary continues with what he proposes, that the man would be disqualified. I ask him to bear in mind the case of a man with no regular abode and no regular address, who, having to give an address on the declaration, casually puts down some address.

Mr. Ede: That reinforces the argument that I put.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 6, line 28, to leave out from "be," to "and," in line 29, and to insert:
for any area, the person having the like duty for the purpose of elections of members to serve in the House of Commons of Northern Ireland.
The intention of this Clause is that the same officer shall determine claims and objections both in respect of the Northern Ireland register and the Imperial register. This is really only a drafting change, made because it was found that the words which it is now proposed should be left out did not entirely cover the position as it is in Northern Ireland. It was thought that the wording of the Amendment was a better way to put it.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Piratin: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and myself have an Amendment to this Clause which has not been called. This and other Amendments which will be found on the Paper in our names, deal with the same point. They all relate to a similar Amendment to Clause r which was not called. Therefore, I feel that I would like to make a few remarks on the matter, and I hope that the Home Secretary, or the Under-Secretary, will make some observations in reply to what I have to say. The point is a small one, but it is important. It will, I think, appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. In this Clause we are dealing with the question of the register. In one case the register will be published on r5th March. It will be based on a qualifying date, the previous 20th November. It could be used for an election on 16th March. In practice, that is not the case, but it could be used for an election within the usual period after that date. It could be used for an election, say, on 7th April.
I claim that this is unfair and difficult from the point of view of the operation of the local machine. Every hon. Member recognises that his electoral machine is prepared long before an election. According to the Bill, there could be an election on a register prepared the day before the election. This matter ought to


be reviewed. I ask the Minister to consider the matter with a view to introducing an Amendment at a later stage. I recognise that an argument which could be advanced against my suggestion is that people will be on the register for one month longer than is the case at the moment, but I suggest that this Clause may cause tremendous difficulties.

Mr. P. Roberts: I have read the Clause as amended and I am not certain what would happen in certain circumstances. Let us assume that this Bill becomes law by 1st August of this year, and that there is a General Election for which the polling day is 29th September of this year. On what register would that election take place? The re-distribution of seats will take place after the passing of the Bill on 1st August. I would like to be sure that we are doing something which is practical, and that it is possible to have an election on 29th September.

Mr. Ede: An election on 29th September would take place on the register current at that date [Laughter.] I am not trying to say anything that appears to he slick. The first register to he published under this Bill will be the Autumn register for 1949. The new registration proposals do not come into force until then. In reply to the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin), the Spring register, which is published on 15th March, will be used for the municipal elections. The earliest date at which a general municipal election can be held under this Bill will be 31st March, so that there will be 16 days between the publication of the register and the date of the election.
I cannot help thinking that it would be very foolish for a municipal by-election to be fought on the day after the register came into effect. Of course, it would be possible to say that this might have happened with regard to Parliamentary by-elections, or that a Government might have declared for a General Election on the day after the register came into force, but these things are always arranged in this country in a better way than that. I do not think there is any fear that an election would be fought on 16th March. If it were so to he fought, I would think that all the parties to it were very much to blame for the way in which they had arranged the matter.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Piratin: The right hon. Gentleman has confirmed my suspicions in what he said in relation to the general municipal election. It can be held on 3oth March or after, and the register is published on 15th March. There is, therefore, a gap of 16 days. As every Member knows, that 16 clays coincides with the period of the election. The election is begun 16 days before polling day, and I think my argument still stands. The good electoral agent will want to see that his register is in proper order a week before the election campaign begins, not when it is in full swing, and all the activities arc related to the campaign. The 16 days, as the Home Secretary admitted, is too short a period after the day of publication. I would like to see a longer period than the one defined in the Bill.

Mr. Ede: At present, the municipal elections on 1st November are voted on the register that is published on 15th October, and, in addition to desiring to have a long time to prepare the canvass cards, most agents prefer to fight the election on a register that is not too stale. The greater the gap allowed here, the staler the register must be. In this matter we have to balance the advantages with the disadvantages. I think 16 days is long enough for the election machine to get working. It ensures that the register shall be as up to date as possible.

Mr. P. Roberts: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman answered the question I put to him. I appreciate that under Clause 5, which has to be read in conjunction with Clause 74, the operative date is 2nd October. The question I asked is on what register would an election be fought on 29th September this year? Would it be on the present register, which would have to be amended to cover the redistribution of seats after the passing of this Bill?

Mr. Ede: If there were a General Election on 29th 'September of this year, it would have to be fought on the register which will expire on 14th October of this year, and it would be necessary for the registration officers, in making up the registers to send out to agents to ensure that they were so compiled as to give effect to the electoral rolls for constituencies under this Bill. That, I have no doubt, would be a matter of grave inconvenience, and I think the hon. Gentleman


may assume that it is not intended to have a General Election about that date. Hon. Members who have been enGaged in municipal life know that in a redistribution of wards in a borough or urban district the question of picking out pieces of the old register and old wards and putting them together to form a register for the new ward is not an uncommon practice. They have to do it, and it would be exceedingly inconvenient if at some time or other the same register had to be prepared to deal with the new constituencies created under this Bill. I hope it will be a register which has been compiled with the new constituencies in mind.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Service declarations.)

The Temporary Chairman: The first two Amendments, in page 6, line 42, to leave out "twenty-one," and to insert "eighteen," in the name of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), and in page 7, line 14, to leave out "of the age appearing from," and to insert "born on the date appearing on," in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) are not selected.

Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order. May I point out what happened on an earlier Clause, when a similar Amendment was on the Paper? When the Bill was previously considered in Committee, the then Chairman, Major Milner, said to my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher):
I am extremely sorry. As the hon. Member knows, there will be other opportunities. I am sorry his Amendment had been passed over when he arrived.
My hon. Friend made it quite clear that he could not get into the Chamber because he could not get by as the Lobby was so filled with other hon. Members. On that occasion, too, the Home Secretary said:
I regret also that the hon. Member was prevented from being in his place to move the Amendment when his name was called. But I can hold out no hope that the Government will be prepared to consider this Amendment when we get to a later stage of the Bill"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1948; Vol. 448,, c. 2236.]

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member appears to be challenging a de-

cision given by the Chair. I thought he wished to raise a point of Order.

Mr. Piratin: I think I have the sympathy of the Committee in pointing out that a similar Amendment was put on the Order Paper to be called last Wednesday, and I would ask for your Ruling about that which stands now in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and myself, in page 6, line 42, to leave out "twenty-one" and to insert "eighteen."

The Temporary Chairman: I gather that the hon. Member is asking why this Amendment has not been selected. The answer is that it is not customary to give reasons for not calling an Amendment.

Mr. Piratin: I insist—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—Yes, it is my right, my duty, to point this out. I was not present when my hon. Friend attempted to get into the Chamber last week. He tried, but with all his vigour and energy he could not get into the Chamber. When he did get in, as he pointed out, he made a run to his seat.

The Temporary Chairman: I do not want to be misunderstood. The hon. Member must raise a point of Order, or resume his seat.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 7, line 33, to leave out from "declaration" to "a" in line 34, and to insert,
shall cease to have effect on the date on which the declarant ceases to be
This Amendment raises a point of some substance. The Committee will know that a Service declaration may be made by a member of His Majesty's Forces even though he has not attained the age at which he would be entitled to register or vote, and, under Subsection (4) of this Clause it is provided that having made his service declaration he shall, until the contrary is proved, be treated for the purposes of registration as having been at the date of the declaration and as continuing to be a member of the Forces. If I understand that correctly the registration officer, once he receives the service declaration, must, until he receives notice of its cancellation, treat it as effective and regard the voter as continuing to be a member of the Forces. Under Subsection (7), to which this Amendment is directed, it is provided that a Service declaration


shall continue in force so long as the declarant remains a member of the Forces, or unless it is cancelled by him.
12.45 a.m.
I have been dealing with preliminary points up to now, and have arrived at the point which is troubling me. What procedure is there for ensuring that the registration officer will be notified when the Service declarant has ceased to be a member of the Forces? Surely, there ought to be automatic cessation of the right to vote as a Service voter when the man ceases to be a Service voter. That is the intention, and the Serviceman will then qualify on the ordinary register. Unless that is clearly provided in this Clause, and I think at the moment that it is not, I can see a serious situation arising.
In view of the National Service Act the number of persons on the Service register will grow very considerably. When they have done their year's service they will cease to be members of the Forces from the point of view of voting as I understand it, and yet, because the declaration has reached the registration officer their names may well remain on the Service register. We might find in those circumstances that the Service register, at the time of an election, contains the names of people who really do not intend to vote in that constituency, yet who receive, because their names still remain on the register, a lot of literature from candidates with whom they have no concern at all.
We can see the position of a Service voter declaring for a particular constituency. On leaving the Services he might make his home in some other part of the country, to which he may have gone for the purpose of employment. It may be difficult for the registration officer in the area where he is registered as a soldier, with his name still on the Service register, and the result will be that a great deal of paper will be wasted and a great deal of trouble caused to members of all parties in indicating their views to that Service voter. We think that it would improve this Bill if it was clearly stipulated—and this is not clear in Clause 7—first, that directly a man ceases to be a member of the Forces he ceases to be entitled to vote as a Service voter; and, second, upon that, there ought to be some machinery to ensure that the registration officer who has the declaration is notified when that member ceases to be a member of the Forces.

I hope I have made this rather involved point clear to the right hon. Gentleman. If I have, I am sure he will agree that it is a point of some importance.

Mr. Ede: The Service voter is registered in respect of a declaration. It would be wrong to remove him from the register the moment he ceases to be a member of the Forces because then for the remainder of the period of the currency of that register he would have no vote at all. I am quite sure the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to achieve that. What he desires is that the man shall have a vote either as a Service voter or as a residential voter continuously. I take it that what he wants to ensure is that for the remainder of the period of his last year in the Forces he shall remain a Service voter, but that at the end of that period, when the canvass takes place, he shall then be placed on the register as an ordinary registered voter.
What he desires is that he shall be taken off the register if his new address is a different one from the one in respect of which he was registered as a Service voter. The last is the real point that it is sought to achieve in the Amendment which the hon. and learned Member has moved. The way in which that will be achieved will be that the regulations governing the enfranchisement of Service voters will place an obligation on the Service authorities to notify to the registration officer for the area where the man chooses to be registered when his service in the forces end. The registration officer, when the next registration is compiled, will remove the man from the list of Service voters. If he then resides at that address, he will come up as a resident voter in respect of that address. If he is registered elsewhere it will be the duty of the registration officer elsewhere to pick him up through the canvass, and see that his name appears on the register. I think that the position is met that there should be no unnecessary duplication of names or the retention of names of Service voters on the register after the end of the year—the registration half-year—in which they cease to be Service voters.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in assuming that I did not desire for one moment that there should be any gap between the Serviceman ceasing to be in the Services and his coming into a residence on the residential


list, where he had no vote at all. But the object of the Amendment was to ensure that there was not unnecessary duplication, and that the Service register did not become clogged with names which did not require to be on it. The system which the right hon. Gentleman has explained to us must obviously depend entirely on the Service authorities. They will, presumably, have a register of all the declarations and see that these declarations are made, it may be, in remote parts of the world. There is likely to be, is there not, a considerable time-lag in the declarations coming back to the central Service authorities? There may be a time-lag in the Service authorities notifying the registration officer, but this system has been in force since, I think, 1944. I imagine from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that it has not been found to have worked unsatisfactorily so far, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and in view of his explanation and assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont, is it your intention to call the Amendment standing in my name?—in page 8, line 9, at end, add:
(9) With a view to securing that any member of the forces entitled to make a service declaration under this Section, shall be enabled to do so, the officer in charge of each unit of His Majesty's Forces shall:

(a) have a man to man, or other sufficient inquiry made as to the persons entitled to make such declaration;
(b) provide sufficient forms of service declaration and supply the same to the persons entitled to make such declarations;
(c) arrange for the signature to, and the collection of, such service declaration, and shall be responsible for their transmission to the appropriate Registration Officer.
(10) No officer shall be entitled to reject or amend in any way any such service declaration, but shall be entitled to make any objection thereto in writing to the appropriate Registration Officer for determination by that Registration Officer, as if the service declaration were a claim by a civilian voter.
(11) Any officer who fails to carry out his duties, or any one of them, under this Section, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both, or on conviction on indictment to

a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): No, it is not being called because it is wrongly placed.

Mr. Piratin: Then, as I gather I shall have an opportunity of referring to that particular matter on a later Clause, I will on this Motion, refer to another Amendment—in page 6, line 42—which was not called. I feel that the Committee ought to give greater consideration to this Amendment, which is to the effect that the qualifying age should be 18 and not 21. I ask the Home Secretary to make some observations on this matter. We are dealing with Service men. The Home Secretary, in the Debate in Committee last week, alluded to the same point made by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). On the question of the qualifying age being 18 instead of 21, he said:
Our view is that 21 years of age is the appropriate age for people to undertake the duties of citizenship. It requires a certain amount of maturity and experience, and we feel the long established practice in this country of regarding 21 as a suitable age should be continued."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 17th March, 1948; Vol. 448, c. 2236.]
I take it that that represented the Government's point of view.
I wonder whether that is really the view of the people concerned. We have a most contradictory situation. Lads of 18 have been called up to do their duty in the Services, and, as we know, they have done it very well indeed. Such young men of 18 have risen to rank; many a lad of 19 has flown his own aircraft, and lads of 19 and 20 have been in charge of companies. Does the Home Secretary suggest that these lads have not risen to a stage of maturity and citizenship, when they have been in charge of companies in battle? Of course, they have. Many other lads of that age would have done the same, had they had the opportunity.
I would direct the Home Secretary's attention to the Appendix of the Report of the Conference on Electoral Reform and the Redistribution of Seats, Cmd. 6534. On page 8 it will be seen that the third resolution was to the effect that the Conference recommended that the franchise be extended to all who have reached the age of 18. The resolution was voted on, with the following result: Ayes, 3; noes, 16;


not voting, 13. Only 16 out of a committee of 32—only half—voted against that resolution to change the qualifying age from 21 to r8. Yet the Home Secretary says with much confidence, "It is our opinion that 21 is a suitable age." At that conference the Labour Members did not vote in favour of 21; in the main, they abstained. The hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) and two others voted in favour of 18. I hope the Home Secretary will make some observations on this matter.
It was only in 1944 when the Labour Members were then half inclined—that is the interpretation of their abstention—to consider that 18 was a suitable age. Yet today the Home Secretary says, "We think 21 is a suitable age." Why? The Home Secretary is well aware that a lad of 18 can be sent to prison for an offence. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is different from voting."] The hon. Member is not taking this matter as seriously as he might. Perhaps it is because of the late hour, but that, unfortunately, is the result of the Government's decision, and we have to abide by it. We are debating this Bill in most difficult circumstances. If a lad of 18 is sufficiently responsible so that he may be sent to prison for some offence, is he not responsibe to undertake the duty of citizenship? If he may be put in the Army and rise to rank and command men, is he not also responsible to undertake this other duty?
I would also refer to a technical point. At the moment, in view of the fact that we normally have elections at five-yearly intervals, the person who qualifies at 21, on the average, will not vote——

The Deputy-Chairman: I must remind the hon. Member that this Clause only deals with Service declarations.

Mr. Piratin: May I respectfully say that the point which I have in mind relates to page 6, line 42 of the Bill, concerning the age qualification of 21 years? I submit with the greatest respect that I am in Order in dealing with that.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) looks at the Subsection, he will see that it concerns merely a declaration of the attainment of 21 years of age.

Mr. Piratin: It is my opinion—and I say it with the greatest respect—that I

am entitled to deal with this Subsection line by line and word by word, and if I think that 21 should he altered to 18. I am entitled to say so.

The Deputy-Chairman: No

Mr. Piratin: Do you rule, Mr. Beaumont, that I am not entitled to say so? Could I have your Ruling on that, because I should like to know where I am as a comparative newcomer to this Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is only entitled to discuss the matter in so far as it relates to the Service declaration.

Mr. Piratin: The Service declaration relates to the age which is the suitable age to make the declaration, and the Clause says 21. I am asking that that age should be 18.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member should read what is there. It says:
A service declaration shall state…whether the declarant had on the date of the declaration attained the age of twenty-one years, and, if he had not, the date of his birth

Mr. Piratin: I do not want to cross swords with you, Mr. Beaumont, on this matter, but I want to see what is in Order. I would point out to you, with respect, that Clause 6 (2) reads as follows:
A service declaration shall state…whether the declarant had on the date of the declaration attained the age of twenty-one years….
I should like to see the Service declaration age brought down to 18 years.

The Deputy-Chairman: It will be in Order to say that, but the hon. Member must not discuss it.

Mr. Piratin: I am discussing some reasons why it should be 18, and surely one must state reasons for an opinion. May I continue?

The Deputy-Chairman: The answer is "No." The hon. Member cannot discuss the question of 18.

Mr. Piratin: May I put this question to the Home Secretary, or the Under-Secretary, in addition to the points I have already made? As we are dealing with ex-Service men and the declarations of ex-Service men, is the Home Secretary of the opinion that if a man is fit to fight, he is fit to vote?

Mr. Ede: This issue was raised on Clause 1, where the age for voting was fixed. All that we are doing here is to collect information about the date of the birth of a soldier, and altering this figure from 21 to 18 would not give the soldier the vote at 18. All it would mean would be that when he attained the age of 18, it would be recorded. If he had not attained the age of 18, the date of his birth would be recorded. I discussed the question of altering the age on Clause 1, and if the matter is raised in an effective form at any later stage of the Bill, I will consider whether it is necessary to make any further statement on the issue.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Polling districts and polling places.)

Amendments made: In page 8, line 43, leave out "administrative."

In page 9, line 26, leave out second "county."—[Mr. Younger.]

1.0 a.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Mulvey: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. May I move my Amendment?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member's Amendment has not been selected.

Mr. Spence: I would ask for a few words of explanation about how this part of the Bill will apply in Scotland. The particular part that interests me is that dealing with the setting up of polling stations for electors in rural areas in Subsection (4) of the Clause. It states:
If any interested authority or not less than 30 electors in a constituency make a representation to the Secretary of State.…
It does not say whether it is the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Home Secretary. It goes on to say that this representation will be considered and arrangements will be made for setting up polling booths. I should like to have an assurance from the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he is here, or if he is not, from the Home Secretary, that provision will be made for rural areas in Scotland. We had a good deal of trouble in the General Election in getting electors to the

poll in certain areas which are isolated from main roads and means of public transport. People were quite definitely unable to vote because they could not go to the polling stations. I should like an assurance that sympathetic consideration will be given to these cases, because the Clause as it stands is permissive. The word used are:
The Secretary of State shall consider the representation and may, if he thinks fit—
I think it is only right that we should have an assurance on this matter before agreeing to the Clause.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I would like to ask for confirmation from the right hon. Gentleman or the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate, that in this Clause, in Subsection (4), where it reads
If any interested authority…make a representation to the Secretary of State
and further on,
the Secretary of State shall consider the representation and may, if he thinks fit—(a) direct the local authority or, in Scotland, returning officer
the Secretary of State referred to is the Secretary of State for Scotland, because it does seem to be a matter of considerable importance.

Mr. Mulvey: Subsection (6) lays down that polling booths in Northern Ireland are to be those at present used for the Northern Ireland Parliament elections. There is not, perhaps, in the British Empire or in any civilised country such a scandalous state of affairs as exists in Northern Ireland in regard to the situation of polling booths. Following the gerrymandering of the various constituencies twenty years ago, the polling places were so arranged as to inconvenience thousands of voters and especially those belonging to my party.
Let me give a few instances. I will not detain the House very long. The senior Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Cunningham) lives about two miles north of Omagh. At an election he has to go through the town of Omagh and proceed in a westerly direction three miles farther out to the place allotted to him to vote. People from the western side of Omagh, within 200 yards of the polling booth, have also to proceed out in the same direction three miles to record their votes. In Killane, on the south-western side of the town, there are about 100 voters.


These have to go through the town, pass the same polling booth, and proceed in a south-easterly direction five miles out in the country to record their votes.
A few moments ago, on the question of a register for Northern Ireland, the Under Secretary of State said that one must make no distinction, that one should have fair representation in Northern Ireland, the same as in this country. On the matter of these polling booths, I wonder what the Home Secretary will say about this process of gerrymandering. I know of one case in Down where the electors have to cross a mountain and go five miles beyond the mountain to record a vote for representation in this House. I know a parish in another district where there is a polling booth in the centre of the parish, but the people—and they are supporters of mine—[Interruption.] I merely mention the cases of these people being victimised, and I regret that my friends from Northern Ireland on the Opposition benches are not here. They cannot deny my statement in regard to these matters.
There was a case where a returning officer was approached by my election agent who asked him to try to arrange some convenient polling centres to avoid inconveniencing people in this way, and he promised to try to do so on the statement of my agent, a decent gentleman. But there was gerrymandering on the county councils. In Co. Fermanagh, in Co. Armagh, in Londonderry and Co. Down, there are typical cases of the people being inconvenienced in the matter of polling booths, and many hon. Members who were over in Co. Down in 1946 at a by-election will bear out my statement.
That is the whole question. We are giving ample facilities to voters in this country for representation in this House and denying those facilities to the people of Northern Ireland, especially in Co. Tyrone and Fermanagh. I protest against this discrimination and I ask the Home Secretary, in view of the fact that the Under-Secretary has said that there should be fair play for all sections, to consider this question and agree that some measure of redress shall be afforded the electors of Northern Ireland in regard to this matter.

Mr. McKie: I want to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel

Gomme-Duncan) regarding the necessity for the Lord Advocate making it quite clear who the Secretary of State designated under Subsection (4) of this Clause is intended to be so far as Scotland is concerned. I certainly think that all the Scottish Members in the Committee are entitled to know that, and also are entitled to have information with regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Mr. Spence) with reference to the right of appeal for electors. As my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, as the Subsection now reads the matter is left entirely in the hands of the responsible authority, which in this case can be no other than the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think that a vast majority of the electorate in Scotland would give as their emphatic opinion on this matter that it should not be left to him. We should have an injunction clearly laid upon the Scottish Office that if there is a desire by a body of the electors for a polling station, their demand must be met.
As I represent the constituency in Great Britain which is the nearest to Northern Ireland, I would like to say a word or two about the speech of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey). On this occasion we obviously have a less united Ireland than we had on an Amendment to a previous Clause, judging by the fierce invective of the hon. Member in the latter part of his speech; but I certainly think—though I am not entitled to speak for my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland—that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone is entitled to a reply from the Home Secretary.
Representing a scattered constituency in rural Scotland, I quite agree about the inconvenient situation of the polling stations for many people in many parts of the country. That was the point which the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen was making a few minutes ago. Therefore, it gives me pleasure to join with my hon. Friend in asking the Home Secretary to make clear why Subsection (6) lays it down that Northern Ireland is to be exempted from the provisions of Clause 7. Though I do not want to anticipate the right hon. Gentleman's answer, I expect his answer will be that it would be inconvenient to have two sets of polling stations, one for the Stormont Parliament, and one for the 12 of 14 hon. Members


who represent the Ulster constituencies in the Imperial Parliament at Westminster. I can see that there is a lot of force in that contention, but the Home Secretary should clear up the whole matter. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone talked about gerrymandering. As I listened to the fierce way in which he talked, I could not help thinking that he objected that the gerrymandering was all against him, and that he would like power to gerrymander in the other direction. If I do the hon. Member an injustice——

The Deputy-Chairman: I fear that the hon. Member is now getting out of Order, although the early part of his speech was so inaudible that I had difficulty in determining whether he was in Order or not.

Mr. McKie: I was only saying that the hon. Member complained of gerrymandering.

The Deputy-Chairman: I heard that point. That was why I rose.

Mr. Mulvey: I think that the hon. Member, if he were aware of the facts, would not make any reference to the subject.

Mr. McKie: Perhaps in future I shall have an opportunity to visit the beautiful constituency of Fermanagh and Tyrone and to see for myself what goes on there. I will not say any more on that point. The hon. Gentleman is certainly entitled to a reply on this matter. The distance between polling stations is a matter which concerns us very much in Scotland. Although we do not appear to have a united Ireland on this point, we have a considerable measure of unity so far as Scotland and Ulster are concerned.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Delargy: I support the protest of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey). I deprecate the levity with which his forcible and democratic argument has been received in this Committee. I do not know why an Irish argument should always be received as a joke. It is significant that at the moment there are no Unionist Members in the Committee. They probably realise that they do not need to be here: the Government would support them in any case. I cannot imagine why the Government should resist the request made by

the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone.
All that he asked was that the writ which runs in this country should be applied in Northern Ireland. It is the Northern Ireland people who are asking for an exception. Why should they ask for it? Why should not the law which applies here be applied there? They must have some reason for asking this. The distribution of the polling centres in Northern Ireland imposes great hardship on many voters. There are some who have to travel as far as eight miles in order to record their votes. There are some who have to pass as many as ten polling stations to record their vote in the next one. I am sure that no one on this side of the Committee could regard that as being convenient or democratic. This is not a laughing matter. It is most serious. I am not now pleading a party point of view. Many of us have protested on more than one occasion that the constituencies in Northern Ireland have been so gerrymandered as to make them safe for a certain party against the democratic wishes of the people.

Sir I. Fraser: Why does one have to pass ten polling stations in order to vote in the eleventh?

Mr. Delargy: I am delighted that the hon. Member has raised that point. I cannot answer the question. It is a most absurd situation. That is what we are protesting against tonight. The point is that everything connected with elections in Northern Ireland is so absurd that no intelligent person in the Committee could answer that question. What annoys us is that we had an opportunity in this Bill of arranging that polling stations should be so situated that voters could register their votes at places near their homes. We read, however, that Subsections (2) to (5) are not to apply to Northern Ireland. Affairs have been so engineered in Northern Ireland that the Government there shall always have a majority in the House even though they have not a majority of votes. I am afraid that, at the moment, we can do nothing about it. At all events, let us not consent to a proposal that this gerrymandering of constituency boundaries shall extend to the gerrymandering of the very polling stations themselves. That is all


we ask. I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, in the democratic interests of all, to support the principle of the Amendment, which was not called, by voting against this Clause.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I find it very difficult to understand line 12 of page 9, which states that the Secretary of State may
direct the local authority, or, in Scotland, the returning officer.…
Does that mean that in Scotland he may direct one or the other, or that in Scotland he directs the returning officer? After that, we find that the local authority means in Scotland any county, town, or district council. If the Secretary of State is directing the local authority and, if under Subsection (4, b) the local authority has failed, is it the county or district council, and is it normal for the Secretary of State to direct a district council?

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Wheatley): May I reply to the Scots or Celts on the east side of the Irish Channel and leave the Home Secretary to deal with the question as it affects the Celts on the west side? If the hon. Members who have raised the question in relation to Scotland had referred to Subsection (2) of the Clause, they would have seen that whereas in England the local authority whose clerk is registration officer will do certain things, in Scotland the returning officer, who is the sheriff, will in the first place designate the polling places and thereafter keep them under review.
When he has made his designation, or when he has reviewed the original designation, it may be that any interested authority, or not less than 30 electors, may make representations. It does not necessarily follow that those representations are well founded, and accordingly the Secretary of State, who in this case would be the Secretary of State for Scotland, would require to adjudicate between the decision of the sheriff or the returning officer and the representations of the people making the protest. In these circumstances it would be absurd to direct that he should imperatively give certain instructions, because that would be a denial of his judicial function. That is why it is in the permissive manner that, having heard the representations, the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he thinks fit, gives certain directions to the return-

ing officer and not to the local authority because in Scotland the returning officer is the sheriff.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Why is the local authority mentioned and defined under Subsection (4), which only refers to local authorities?

The Lord Advocate: Because if the hon. Gentleman will look at the context of Subsection (4, a) he will see that the local authority he has referred to is the local authority in England for that purpose, whereas, as far as Scotland is concerned, the paragraph (a), applies to the returning officer, becaus one refers back to Subsection (2) of Clause 7, where there is a distinction between persons making designations in England and persons making designations in Scotland. I think the difficulties envisaged by hon. Members are imaginary and not real, and I trust they will see that the Secretary of State, applying his judicial function to the matter, will have regard to representations and make decisions, and if he thinks necessary give directions to the returning officer with regard to the provision of polling stations, or alterations in regard to them.

Mr. Bing: I had hoped that the Home Secretary would take seriously what has been said about the cleaning up of elections in Northern Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are only too willing to go to war to confer the doubtful benefits of party government on Bulgaria, do not stay when it is a question of voting at home. Let me just say one word more and read what was said by a Unionist Member—one of the leading Unionist Members—about the election of the junior Member for Down (Lieut. Mullan). I am sorry that he has left us at a time when we could welcome him, but this is what was said. "It was absolutely rotten"—and this is a Unionist Member speaking—"and unless something is done there will be no use in having elections at all." I hope my right hon. Friend will do something.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) has raised the question of Subsection (6) of this Clause. This will not apply to Northern Ireland because the polling districts and polling places in Northern Ireland will be those established for the local Parliament. I think that it will be agreed


that it is desirable that polling places should be the same for all elections, so far as is possible. Anyone who has had long experience of elections, as all hon. Members of this Committee must have had, will know the difficulties which will arise when there is a different place for municipal elections and Parliamentary elections.

Mr. House: Mr. House (St. Pancras, North) rose——

Mr. Ede: I am trying to deal with a point which concerns Northern Ireland, and I want to suggest that there it is desirable that the same places should be used for all elections. As I understand the arrangements for Northern Ireland, they are, as far as the technicalities of the law are concerned, the same as we prescribe in this Bill for England, that is to say, the polling places are fixed by the county and county borough councils, subject to confirmation by the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, and as in this country, other local authorities than those responsible for fixing these polling places can protest to the Minister of Home Affairs if they are not satisfied and thirty electors also can protest, if they are dissatisfied. It is quite clear that what is required is not that this Subsection should be deleted, for, if we examine the Northern Ireland position with the English position under this Bill, the same machinery would be indicated. If there is a grievance—and from the descriptions we have heard it would appear that these arrangements are awkward—it is a matter which must be dealt with inside the working of the province of Northern Ireland. We should make arrangements for exactly the same people as the Northern Ireland Parliament has arranged for, and I suggest that, while it was legitimate for the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone and the hon. Members for Platting (Mr. Delargy) and Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) to raise the matter, the exact effect of the Amendment on the Paper in their names would have been to leave the position precisely the same as it is.

1.30 a.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I want to say that I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for having given a fair explanation of the points we raised. He did say that the Secretary of State referred to here would

be the Secretary of State for Scotland. How are we to know that once the Bill has left the House? Is it not desirable that, in the Interpretation Clause, it should be made perfectly clear that it is. the Secretary of State for Scotland who is referred to, or is there something in the Bill which makes that automatic?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): In the Constitution there is only one Secretary of State, but in a way he is divided into a number, and they are all interchangeable in the exercise of constitutional powers. In Scotland, the Secretary of State is the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Pickthorn: Is that assurance meant to last only for this Parliament?

Mr. Spence: We are grateful for the Lord Advocate's explanation, but there is one point that is a little confused in my mind. When he was explaining that representations could be made by 30 burghers or by an authority for additional polling stations, it was not quite clear whether those representations were made to the sheriff or to the Secretary of State for Scotland in person. This is a point upon which we want to be clear, because I can assure the Lord Advocate that if the polling stations, when this Bill becomes law, are the same as those used at the General Election, there will be a good deal of discontent. A number of cases will be raised. It is for that reason that I ask for something clearer about how representations should be made, and to whom.

The Lord Advocate: It says in terms in Subsection (4) that representations should be made to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Tiffany: I have listened very carefully to the reply given by the Home Secretary on the position relating to Northern Ireland. He said that the position there was the same as in this country, namely, that if 3o people agree they could put forward their complaint to the people responsible, failing satisfaction being obtained locally. If the facts as given by hon. Members are correct, surely people will have made representations? If they have made representations on those lines and reasonable action has not been taken, surely we could in this Committee do something to see that fairness is brought about and the


object outlined by the Home Secretary attained—namely, that it is desirable that the same polling stations should apply for both elections, so that there should not be the hardships imposed of people having to travel eight miles and passing 10 polling stations on the way. If there is an opportunity of making it fairer in Northern Ireland, we should do so.

Mr. Ede: This is the point. The law in Northern Ireland appears to be the same as the law proposed here, namely, that the county and county borough councils fix these authorised places. If a local authority, a district council or a town council, object to what has been done, and do not regard it as sufficient, they have the right in Northern Ireland to appeal to the Minister of Home Affairs, who is the responsible Minister. In addition, 30 electors have the right. That is precisely the same position as it is here, and I suggest, therefore, that it would not matter at all if the Clause were varied in the way that has been suggested. Apparently, if appeals have been made by these people who have had to walk eight miles, they have not been listened to by the appropriate authorities in Northern Ireland, but of that I have no information.

Mr. Delargy: May I ask one question? In the case of Scotland, representations can be made to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Is there no one in this House to whom representations can be made in respect of similar grievances in Northern Ireland, because it is apparent that not much confidence is placed upon anyone to whom the matter can be referred in Northern Ireland. As this Bill concerns this House, is there no one here to whom representations can be made in this matter of polling booths?

Mr. Ede: The person to whom representations are made is the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Frank Byers: It seems to me that we have come to the situation that the law is the same in both countries and yet we are told—I believe it to be true—that the polling arrangements are unsatisfactory in Northern Ireland. There is this question of administration. Is it not possible for the Home Secretary, or someone in the Government of this country, to bring pressure to bear on, or to make representations, to the people in Northern

Ireland to see that the law is carried out in the proper way? It is quite wrong for the House to put up with bad conditions of polling which affect Members returned to the House.

Mr. Ede: I agree with the hon. Member on the last point, but always on the assumption that the stories that we have heard this evening, and on which I cast no doubt, can be substantiated. I have no power myself to make representations to the Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland as to the way in which he carries out his functions, but in so far as these are matters that relate to the Imperial Parliament—and we are dealing with an endeavour to secure common conditions for all the electors of Members to this Parliament—I will see that his attention is drawn, in a friendly way, to the statements that have been made here this evening and to the complaints that have been made. I hope that where they can be substantiated, something will be done to remedy them.

Mr. Bing: I do not want to delay the Home Secretary for more than a moment. This very point was made by the Home Secretary in Northern Ireland when these very questions were raised in the Northern Ireland House. He said:
I should regard it as a gross impertinence on the part of this House to make any representations to the Imperial Government as to the method by which they should conduct business in that House. That is the business of the Imperial Parliament.
So we have got to this situation, that Northern Ireland refuses to do anything about it because they say it is for this House, and this House says it cannot do anything about it because it is a matter for the Northern Ireland Government.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Three hours ago, on a similar Motion, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said that if we sat for a little longer, he would again consider what progress he hoped to make with this Bill tonight. Three hours may be regarded as sitting for a little longer, and I am sure many hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to know what are the right


hon. Gentleman's intentions. In the course of four hours' discussion since the Division was taken on the main Amendment on Clause 3, we have completed four Clauses. Practically the whole of the discussion on the Bill has come from hon. Members opposite. Only two or three small Amendments have been moved from this side of the Committee, and it seems increasingly clear to most of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee that hon. Members opposite are determined not to make much progress with this Bill. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Patronage Secretary to consider whether they should not find some means of expediting the progress and the passage of the Bill. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now give us some indication of what his intentions are in this regard.

Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman did not quite complete the story of what happened three hours ago. I suggested that he and I should have a conversation. We had a conversation, and I made a certain suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. He said he would go away and think about it, and that we would meet again in five minutes. I am still waiting for that five minutes to expire. We have not got nearly as far as I had hoped we should get by this time, and I regret to say that I think it would be better to continue our labours in the hope that we shall get somewhere near the target that I suggested to the right lion. Gentleman.

Mr. Peake: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to indicate to the Committee what was the target he was aiming at when he spoke to me?

Mr. Ede: I think we might well get to Clause 30 during this Sitting.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Really, we had a very long night last night. We do not think anyone could accuse us on this side of the Committee of delaying matters last night or tonight. This is as important a Bill as the one we were discussing last night, and I do suggest that it is not the right time in the early hours of the morning to take an important constitutional Measure, when, owing to the shortage of newsprint, it is not possible for those who will be vitally affected by this Measure to see in the newspapers what has been said.
While appreciating the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to make progress, I suggest that he would make better speed if he did not pursue this course. He would make far better speed if the Committee, which is tired after what happened last night and what is happening tonight, could now depart and come back to tackle the difficult points of this Bill with fresh minds. I feel quite certain that there would then be far greater progress. To continue with this Measure now would be an indication again of the regard which hon. Members opposite have for the interests of a minority.

Mr. Hogg: I suggest that the Home Secretary should have a little more consideration for the Committee. Three hours ago we had an intervention from the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), who has not been with us since, and I should like to reassure the Home Secretary that if he gives way on this Motion he will not have the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland to contend with, because he has been gone three hours. Therefore, we might as well come to some conclusion upon the merits.
What are the merits? They are these: The right hon. Gentleman, three hours ago, suggested that we on this side of the Committee had been responsible for the slowness of the progress made. I have been sitting here for the greater part of the Debate since then, and I am right in saying that probably not more than a quarter of the time has been spent in speeches from this side of the Committee. We have not evinced any desire to prolong the discussions, being only too anxious to see hon. Members from various parts of the country put their various points of view.
1.45 a.m.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) intervened about three times, and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) twice or three times, and there have been other and frequent interruptions from Scotland and other parts of the country, no doubt all well justified. The fact of the matter is that we are not getting on very fast, and the Home Secretary ought to consider whether he is treating the Committee reasonably now in setting a target of Clause 30 at a quarter to two in the morning. We shall have another five or six


interventions from the hon. Member for Hornchurch and another 17 speeches from the junior Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone about Northern Ireland, and we will not get much further with another Clause.
The situation must be related to the procedure of the House. Yesterday the House was expected to sit until three o'clock in the morning considering a Bill relating to Palestine, and by a Motion which we passed in the earlier part of this Sitting we are to meet again at II o'clock this morning to discuss another series of important matters. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland said that he was willing to sit until six o'clock in the morning, but he has gone home and I am only suggesting that we should do likewise.

Mr. Pickthorn: I wonder if one or two hon. Members on the other side of the Committee might not consider that there is something more in this than is merely fractious. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee tell us quite honestly that they are conducting a great experiment in social democracy not only for this country, but as a demonstration to the world. What could be a more ludicrous, and one might almost say an obscene, parody not only of democracy but of Government by discussion than the way we have done things lately? Yesterday there was a Debate on Palestine, where there are living two million people without jurisdiction, in the most horrible tragic mess—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] If the Chair calls me to Order, I will deal properly with the Chair.

The Deputy-Chairman: What the hon. Member has just said sounds very much like a threat to the Chair.

Mr. Pickthorn: If you, Mr. Beaumont, would like me to explain to hon. Gentlemen opposite the correct meaning of the word "properly," I am perfectly willing to do so. There was no suggestion of threat or disrespect in what I said. I have always had the utmost propriety for the Chair, and if the Chair takes any action in regard to what I say I will deal with it with the utmost propriety. Meanwhile, if hon. Members opposite interrupt me, that merely delays what the Home Secretary is anxious to expedite, and in no way affects or disturbs me. I

was asking if hon. Members opposite, whose minds are on other things, recalled that the matter and the manner of what we did yesterday was a very odd example of Government by discussion.
Now we have come to something equally important. If there is anything more important than our responsibility, direct or indirect, for lives and other valuables in territory which has been and still is under the control of His Majesty, it is the composition of future Houses of Commons. These are perhaps the two most important sorts of matters with which this Committee can be asked to deal.
Now we are being asked to go to Clause 3o. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was a soldier and used to taking a target seriously. When he calls Clause 30 a target, I suppose he really means that the object of the operation is to hit it. Does he really ask the Committee to believe that, after all we did last night and in view of the fact that at eleven o'clock we have other business which also goes to the root of the question whether social democracy is possible —the business of what this Government should and could do to the Communists it is decent, it is democratic, it is Parliamentary, to ask the Committee to deal with I cannot tell how many pages of the Bill, which cover the registration of Parliamentary electors, the place and manner of voting at Parliamentary elections—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am not quite sure whether hon. Gentlemen opposite are inviting the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) to withdraw. Certainly, I have nothing to withdraw. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has come in to explain, from his financial experience, what is the proper meaning of the word "withdraw."

Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order. It is within the recollection of most hon. Members now in the Committee that the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) had left to go home. The right hon. Gentleman has now returned.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Piratin: With respect, I was coming to the point of Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member should put his point of Order without elaboration.

Mr. Piratin: May I suggest, with respect, that you hear what I have to say, and then decide whether it is a point of Order or not? Is it in Order for an hon. Member to make a remark when that remark is not in keeping with the truth.

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot say whether the hon. Gentleman's remarks were accurate or not, because I do not know what information he had as to the right hon. Gentleman's whereabouts.

An Hon. Member: He was in the bar.

Mr. Pickthorn: I made no reference whatever to the habits or the probable situation of the right hon. Gentleman, and I have nothing to withdraw. I must now further remind hon. Gentlemen opposite what is covered by these 30 Clauses. "Registration of Parliamentary electors" —[An HON. MEMBER: "We can read them ourselves."] I do not know whether I am allowed to check that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will get a copy of the Bill—"place and manner of voting at Parliamentary elctions, conduct of Parliamentary elections, supplementary, local government franchise and registration of electors, place and manner of voting at local government elections, conduct of local government elections, supplementary." Do right hon. Gentlemen opposite really think in our present circumstances, in the interval between the work done yesterday and the work on the Order Paper of what is now today, that it is decent to suggest that the Committee ought to try to get to that distance, and do all the hon. Gentlemen behind them think it a proper and democratic Parliamentary practice?——[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I had no doubt that some hon. Gentlemen would make a noise of that kind; but what I want to know is. are there some who would not make a noise of that kind? If there are one or two with that amount of intellectual honesty, then I hope they will follow us into the Lobby.

Mr. Grimston: I want to put a further aspect of the matter to the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot understand myself —[An HON. MEMBER: "Do not be childlike."] We have spent some time on this already. I cannot understand—— [Interruption.]

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order—— [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]

The Deputy-Chairman: A point of Order has been raised.

Mr. Hogg: I am extremely anxious to hear what my hon. Friend has to say. Can you, Mr. Beaumont, prevail upon the rabble opposite?

Mr. Grimston: I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman wants to press this matter so hard this evening.—[HON. MEMBERS: "This morning!"]

Mr. Watkins: Send for Danny Kaye.

Mr. Grimston: Earlier in the proceedings today, the right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking, for what it is worth, that he would request the Boundary Commission to consider holding inquiries in the 65 constituencies whose boundaries are to be altered by the Amendment which he introduced today. Now it is obvious that if that undertaking is to he carried out, it is going to take some time and, therefore, why the Bill is to be pressed through the House, through the night and early hours of this morning, is still more difficult to understand.
Of course, the net result is—and the right hon. Gentleman is enough of a Parliamentarian to know this—that, as a result of his handling of the Bill so far, it will take much longer to go through. He knows that as well as I do. What puzzles me more and more in the right hon. Gentleman's handling of this measure is that so distinguished a Parliamentarian as he is could make so many mistakes in a single Bill. He is going to take very much longer in getting this Bill through. It seems to me—and I have been opposite the right hon. Gentleman during the passage of several Bills in this Parliament—that. most of the qualities for which so many hon. Members have admired him have deserted him entirely on this occasion.
I, therefore, put it to him that it is quite fantastic to expect us to reach Clause 30 tonight or at any reasonable hour this morning, or tomorrow morning. I have been in this House when we have run to the next day and reached II o'clock and cut out the Business of that day. [Interruption.] It may be that the Government want to avoid discussing the Communist issue. There may be hon.


Members who are new to the House and who are not aware of that. The only other explanation of which I can think is that the right hon. Gentleman does not want this Bill, judging by the way he is handling the matter. But I doubt whether it is much use my making further appeals to him. I think he has probably got into a stubborn mood, and that no reasonable appeal will have any chance of success. The only result will be that the passage of this Bill will take a great deal longer than it need take.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Delargy: I want to spend only 60 seconds asking the Home Secretary not to give way to the spurious and fatuous arguments which we have heard from the hon.

Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston). He said that the passage of this Bill would not take longer if we went home tonight. I cannot see that it can take longer if we dispose of the Bill here and now. This House has so much to do. There is an enormous programme before it. Later today it goes into Recess. I suggest that we ought to spend even the whole of the night, and all of this morning, in finishing this Bill, or as much of it as we can, so that we can carry on with the programme facing the Government.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 216.

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Stubbs, A. E.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Sylvester, G. O


Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Orbach, M.
Symonds, A. L.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Janner, B.
Pargiter, G. A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Parker, J.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Johnston, D H.
Parkin, B. T.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Paton, Mrs F. (Rushcliffe)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Pearson, A.
Tiffany, S.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitehin)
Peart, T. F.
Tolley, L.


Keenan, W
Perrins, W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Kendall, W. D.
Piratin, P.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Kenyon, C
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Wadsworth, G.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Lee, Miss J, (Cannock)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Warbey, W. N.


Levy, B. W.
Pritt, D. N.
Watkins, T. E.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Randall, H. E.
Weitzman, D.


Lindgren, G. S.
Ranger, J.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Rankin, J.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Longden, F.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
West, D. G.


Lyne, A. W.
Reeves, J.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


McGhee, H. G.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)


Mack, J. D.
Rhodes, H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wilkes, L.


McLeavy, F.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Royle, C.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Mayhew, C. P.
Segal, Dr. S.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Mellish, R. J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Sharp, Granville
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Mikardo, Ian
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Willis, E.


Milchison, G. R
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Monslow, W.
Simmons, C. J.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Moody, A. S.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Morley, R.
Snow, J. W.
Wyatt, W.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Solley, L. J.
Yates, V. F.


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Sorensen, R. W.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Moyle, A.
Soskice, Sir Frank
Zilliacus, K


Nally, W.
Sparks, J. A.



Neal, H. (Claycross)
Steele, T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and




Mr. Hannan.

CLAUSE 8.—(Place and manner of voting as elector.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 10, line 27, to leave out "in Scotland."
The purpose of this Amendment is to apply to England and Wales the provision under Clause 8 (1, b v), which enables a person to vote by post in a General Election on the grounds that he is the returning officer or acting returning officer for some constituency other than that in which he is an elector, As the Clause stands, it applies only to Scotland. The intention is to apply it to England and Wales as well.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think we ought to have an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary of why, when this Bill was introduced, this distinction between Scotland and England and Wales was contained in this particular Subsection. Why has it had to be left to ten minutes past two o'clock in the morning for the Government to make this correction? I think that the Parliamentary Secretary cannot expect us to be content with that sort of explanation, and indeed the fact that the Government have now to

come forward and make this correction shows how necessary it is for us to pay very great care indeed to the provisions and terms of this Measure.
Perhaps I may put a further question. I do not think it would be without interest to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) if he were here, or the hon. Gentleman for Platting (Mr. Delargy), or indeed the hon. Member who has so many Irish constituents, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing). This is a serious question which requires an answer. Why is it that now this privilege of voting by post is being extended from Scotland to England and Wales? Why is it not also extended to Northern Ireland? Why is Northern Ireland excluded from this Clause? I am sorry the Members who have taken up so much time in discussing the impact of the Bill on Northern Ireland are not here to raise the point themselves, but it really is not right to draw distinctions between different parts of Great Britain unless there is a logical reason for doing so. I hope we shall get a satisfactory explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary and have his reasons for giving


this preference to Scotland. It may be that in these circumstances the Secretary of State for Scotland has been able to exert undue influence upon the Home Secretary and that the Home Secretary has only recently got a correct perspective of this matter. Why did that not happen in the first place? Why did we limit it to England and Wales, and why was Northern Ireland so obviously excluded?

2.15 a.m.

Mr. McKie: I hope that the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland will respond to the appeal which has been made by my hon. and learned Friend. As a Scottish Member, I do not grudge my colleagues on either side the benefits which were originally intended for Scotland alone in this Measure, and it may be that the Secretary of State for Scotland has impressed on his colleague the Home Secretary the importance of extending the benefits originally intended for Scotland alone. I shall await with interest what the right hon. Gentleman has to say on this point. I hope the Home Secretary will inform us why, the Government, having agreed, perhaps because of the persuasion of the Secretary of State for Scotland, to give the benefits to England and Wales as well, have seen fit to leave out Northern Ireland. If it is an oversight, I deplore it, and I regret that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) is not here, because he would have had something to say about this. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone has made two valuable contributions to the discussion this evening, but he, and the senior Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Cunningham), have left the Chamber. This, among other things, shows the unwisdom of carrying on these discussions until this late hour—or early hour. There will be no proper Press publicity given to this particular point.

Mr. W. Wells: I do not see what relevance the question of Press publicity has to this particular Amendment.

Mr. McKie: The hon. Members for Fermanagh and Tyrone would like publicity on this point, and although I am a Scottish Member, I am opposite Northern Ireland in my constituency, and wish to make this point on behalf of those hon. Members who are now absent. I invite the Home

Secretary to clear up the points which have been made.

Mr. Younger: I think it is just as well for the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) that there will be no Press publicity for the speech he has just delivered because, if this Amendment is accepted, it will apply to Northern Ireland, so all his anxiety is relieved. I was asked by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) why this was intended originally to apply only to Scotland, and the answer is that the returning officer is in a different position in Scotland from that in which he is in other parts. In Scotland, he is a sheriff, and the sheriff is not normally resident, while in other parts of the Kingdom it is rarer for the returning officer not to be in the constituency of his residence. Since the Bill was drafted there have been representations in respect of England and Scotland—I am not sure that any have been made for Northern Ireland—so that it would be useful to apply the provision throughout the country.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 10, line 30, at the end, to insert:
or the particular circumstances of that person's employment on the date of the poll by the returning officer for some other constituency for a purpose connected with the election in that constituency.
This is really a similar point, but it relates not to the returning officer, but to presiding officers and polling clerks who are employed by the returning officer in some constituency other than their own. In other respects it deals with the same point as the previous Amendment.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I wonder whether the Under-Secretary could explain the drafting of this Amendment? I think I am right in saying that the result of this Amendment will be to allow certain persons described in the Amendment to become absent voters. In order to become an absent voter, one has to start the procedure a good long time before the date of the poll—I am not quite clear how long, but it is a good long time. The Amendment proposes to add:
or the particular circumstances of that person's employment on the date of the poll by the returning officer for some other constituency for a purpose connected with the election.


No one can tell until the date of the poll that a man is going to be employed at the date of the poll. This Amendment makes an impossible situation. If one does not qualify to become an absent voter until one is actually employed on the date of the poll in this capacity, how can one apply a long time in advance to be made an absent voter? I should have thought it was quite clear that the draftsman here has slipped up. It may be that the Government are requiring their draftsmen to undertake work at half-past two in the morning. I would not be at all surprised, considering the way they are rushing legislation. It would be unfair to blame the draftsman for an error, but I hope the Under-Secretary will explain how one can determine long in advance of the poll, that a man is qualified, when the qualification consists in being employed on the date of the poll. It seems logically impossible, and the Amendment appears to be a bad one.

Mr. P. Roberts: I should like to support what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. This Amendment is grammatically incorrect; it has nothing to do with the explanation of the Under-Secretary, who is entirely wrong in saying that it has anything to do with returning officers in Scotland or England. It makes some people who happen to be employed by someone else became absent voters. It is necessary to draw the attention of members of the Committee to what this Amendment does, in point of fact. May I read Clause 8 (I, b, v), adding the words of the Amendment? It will be seen that it does not make sense:
(v) in Scotland, at a general election, the fact that that person is returning officer, deputy returning officer or acting as returning officer for some other constituncy; or the particular circumstances of that person's employment on the date of the poll by the returning officer for some other constituency for a purpose connected with the election in that constituency.
What does that mean? First, the Under-Secretary said it had something to do with the previous Amendment. He referred to returning officers and deputy returning officers. This Amendment does not do that at all. It refers to somebody employed by a returning officer for some other constituency—one of the returning officers not in his own constituency. Why must it be some other constituency? Will the Home Secretary explain that? From

the explanation given, one would have thought that these persons have to be in the employment of the returning officer or the deputy returning officer, or someone acting as a returning officer in some other constituency; but no—it is only for someone acting in some other constituency. One can only assume that it applies to a chauffeur who has gone to some other constituency. That seems to be the only answer. Then the chauffeur would not be able to vote even in his own constituency. Is that the answer? It seems most illogical.
There is a second point I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. It has reference to Subsection (4) of the Clause. If he will look at it, he will see that an absent voter has to apply in writing. Let us take the worthy chauffeur to the acting returning officer who is told that morning that he has to take the car and go to some other constituency. How can he make application in writing to be an absent voter? I suggest that this Amendment has been badly thought out. Perhaps the Government thought that by bringing this up at 2.30 in the morning, they would get away with sloppy drafting. I think the Committee are entitled to have a better explanation than that which we had from the Under-Secretary, which was most misleading. If he will look in HANSARD at the explanation he gave at the beginning, I think he will see that there is no connection between what he said then and what I am sure he was aiming at saying, in a few moments.

Mr. John Foster: I may hazard an explanation as to what the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall (Major P. Roberts) finds so puzzling. I think a verb has been left out of the Amendment. The exception in Clause 8, Subsection (1, b, v) is the fact that -a person is a returning officer. Then, one can leave out the other words, and it goes on—"or particular circumstances." If one reads the other two lines, one finds that there is no verb. I defy anybody to make common sense out of it. I see the Front Bench opposite puzzling over it. I defy any hon. Member opposite who has a copy of the Bill—I see one of them has—to get up and explain how the words
the particular circumstances of that person's employment on the date of the poll
tie up with line 30. It goes as far as the word "constituency." "At a general


election, the fact that that person is returning officer "—blah-blah— "or the particular circumstances"—how can that make sense? He cannot be either returning officer or particular circumstances. I will try again:
…at a general election, the fact that that person is returning officer, deputy returning officer or acting as returning officer for some other constituency or the particular circumstances of that person's employment
I see right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are puzzled. If they are not puzzled, they must be having a very good gossip.
2.30 a.m.
There is a second misdrafting here. In the preceding paragraph the words "that person" appear. Therefore, it reads:
…at a general election the fact that that person is a returning officer"—
we can miss out the next words, and go on to say:
or the particular circumstances of that person's employment…
It is the same "that person," and, therefore "that person" equals "returning officer." Then it reads:
…or the particular circumstances of the returning officer or the particular circumstances of that person's employment on the date of the poll by the returning officer.
That does not make any sense either. That is something else for the Government Front Bench to puzzle over. I do not understand how it is possible to use "that person" in the unamended Clause to equal "the returning officer" and other people, and use the same "that person" in the Amendment referring back to "the returning officer," because we find that "that person" is employed by the returning officer. I would like some explanation of this drafting. Hon. Members opposite will find that it is difficult to read these words consecutively so as to make sense.

Mr. John Lewis: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to withhold his secret from the Committee. In his opening remarks he said a verb had been left out. Would he define the verb and tell the Committee what verb he would put in?

Mr. Foster: Yes. I mean no disrespect to the verb. It is known as a copulative verb. The copulation takes place between "constituency" and "for." I think it should read:
or the particular circumstances"—

the word "in" is missing, too——
of that person's employment on the date of the poll by the returning officer is for a purpose connected with the election in that constituency.
That is what I think it means. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary agree.

Mr. H. Strauss: I think this drafting is quite hopeless. The only point on which I differ from my hon. Friend is that I do not think the Clause can be read in the way he suggests. My guess is that it is just possible to construe it—and even then it still makes nonsense—by connecting "the particular circumstances" with "The fact that that person" etc., in sub-paragraph (v) as it stands. The difficulty in having "that person" in two parts of the sentence is that they both have to be construed as the same person. It is quite impossible to leave the drafting as it stands. The Secretary of State for Scotland, who alone on the Front Bench gives the appearance of understanding this Amendment, and who has been trying to explain it to the Attorney-General, might try to explain it to the Committee.
If this thing is seriously tackled at all, it must be made a further exception. The Amendment to the fifth paragraph in Roman figures wants redrafting and made No. (vi), which possibly would put it right. The Attorney-General could easily do that. If any Member of the Government on the Treasury Bench thinks that this makes sense, I hope he will get up and explain it. If no one is capable of explaining then we know what this Committee is being asked to do, namely, to put on the Statute Book what is admitted by the silence of the Government Front Bench to be complete gibberish and nonsense. As we know by the opposition to the Motion which was recently before the House, that is what hon. Members opposite believe to be true democracy. We shall go on putting ludicrous things on the Statute Book; nothing shall be explained when difficulties are pointed out, and we shall proceed in this ludicrous manner——

Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of Order. Could the mutterings of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) be a little louder, so that we could all enjoy them, or a little less noisy so that we may hear something else.

The Temporary Chairman: I do not think that is a point of Order.

Mr. Pickthorn: Of course, it is.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of Order. What could be more a matter of Order than that the right hon. Gentleman was making so much noise in talking to his neighbour that no one could hear the speech which was being delivered to the Committee? I submit that is by definition a point of Order, and that the Committee is entitled to protection from these noisy interruptions of the right hon. Gentleman in his excursions into the Chamber from some other parts of the building.

The Temporary Chairman: If there was any noise, I had not heard it.

Mr. Strauss: I make no complaint against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), because it is of some advantage to the Committee that the man in charge of the Committee should be present in the Committee; otherwise it would be more decent if he retired to make his noise. In support of what has been said by my hon. Friend, I have put serious points, and I hope somebody is going to rise from the Government Front Bench to prove that these words mean something and to answer the criticism that has been made. So far as I can see, the only Minister who is showing any signs of belief in his own comprehension is the Secretary of State for Scotland. His mind is sufficiently acute to grasp the subject and I hope he will now address the Committee.

Mr. Marlowe: I am rather puzzled over this obscurity, because it is extremely difficult to explain what these words mean. There is a reference in the Subsection to "that person." What we want to find out is who that person is. Various arguments have been advanced. One is that it is the returning officer, and another that it is the returning officer's chauffeur. I am in the dark about this, and I have looked at the heading of the Clause, and obviously the person referred to is a person who is not going to go to the polling booth on the day he votes. If one looks at another part of the Clause, one sees that it is neither the returning officer nor his chauffeur, but it is somebody who is going to be at sea on the

day that polling takes place. But if it is not a person who is going to be at sea on that day, then by reference back to the particular Subsection it will be found that he is a constable. Now the possibilities are that the person is the returning officer or the returning officer's chauffeur or a constable or a person who is at sea. It would assist the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman could address his mind to the question of who is "that person" referred to in the Subsection under discussion, because until we get a definition of that, it is quite impossible to understand to whom the Amendment refers.

Mr. Younger: I must say I am rather surprised at the sudden obtuseness of so many eminent and usually subtle lawyers. The hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. Roberts) asked why this only related to a constituency other than his own. If he had looked at the Subsection, at line 20, he would have found that a person employed by the returning officer in his own constituency is already covered. That is why only employment in another constituency is covered by this Amendment. On the point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), it is true, of course, that when anybody seeks to register as an absent voter there must be a degree of forecasting. It is not necessary to register very long in advance of the date but registration must take place some little time before, and the time would be prescribed by regulation. It is necessary at the time of the application to forecast whether or not, on the date of the poll, it is likely that a person will qualify to be an absent voter. If the Committee look at Clause 9 (1) they will see that an application shall be allowed by the registration officer
if he is satisfied that the applicant is, or will if registered be, entitled…
This is obviously a matter of judgment on the part of the registration officer. I quite agree that it is probably not easy to forecast any considerable time ahead whether a person is likely to be so entitled. It is much more difficult than to forecast some other qualifications. Nevertheless, it is not impossible, provided that the latest date for application for registration prescribed by regulations is not fixed too long a time before the poll. With regard to the complex drafting referred


to by several speakers, I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H Strauss) for having scotched his hon. and learned colleagues's copulative verb. It is not necessary to have a verb at all in this instance, because as the Committee will note, paragraph (b), lines 14 and 15, says:
for one of the following reasons,
and then subparagraphs (i) to (v) list these reasons. When we come to sub-numeral (v) the reason is:
the fact that that person is returning officer
and so on, and leading on to the Amendment, we are describing the circumstances of that person's employment, and there is no need for any verb at all. I think there will possibly be a point in what the hon. and learned Gentleman said about this being more suitable in a separate subparagraph (vi) if it is to avoid any ambiguity as to "that person" referred to. It is a rather complicated matter of drafting and I think it is possible that some modification may be necessary. I undertake to have that looked at to make it easier, although I do not think it is really so difficult to understand as some hon. and learned Gentlemen make out.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: If the hon. Member will withdraw the Amendment and reintroduce a better Amendment on the Report stage, of course, we will have no more to say. But it really does not seem a very satisfactory state of affairs simply to say that the matter will be re-examined when, so far as we can see, undoubtedly some amendment will have to be made. When we come to the Report stage we might find, at some hour of the morning like this—and, of course, hon. Members for the Government might not put down an Amendment—that if we put down an Amendment it might not be accepted. Therefore, I am afraid that we must ask him to drop this Amendment and re-introduce a proper Amendment on the Report stage. May I point out one or two other difficulties which arise, for I was a little shocked to find the hon. Member saying that this depended upon forecasts? I had hoped that the election law of this country would not get mixed up with lotteries and betting, and would depend upon facts which were ascertainable and not on forecasts.
I can see a case for a forecast under Clause 8, (I) (b, III), for there the person forecasting is the person who is going to employ a particular applicant. It is easy enough although perhaps technically not very defensible, to have a forecast, but it is easy enough to forecast when the registration officer himself knows with regard to his own constituency who is going to be the polling clerk and who is not. But he does not know that of his own knowledge with regard to an adjoining constituency, for the polling clerk may come along with some kind of evidence which is perhaps not satisfactory; but that particular returning officer has nothing to go on. As the hon. Gentleman very properly said, this can be done over a short period before the election, and then they will get into a jam—because there will not be time to go back and get the right evidence. In addition to considering the draft, might not the right hon. Gentleman consider making a substantial alteration in relation to Clause 8 (I) (b, III), because the circumstances are very different. The point that would present itself for decision would be a different one. It is more difficult and I think he might take advantage of the time given by withdrawing the Amendment to reconsider it. We shall have to oppose the Amendment unless the hon. Gentleman withdraws it.

Mr. Pickthorn: I shall be very grateful if the Under-Secretary listens to me. I can be very short. I really think—if the Under-Secretary will not mind listening—that there is something amounting to a mistake, or at least to confusion, here and I think that most of those struggling with it do agree that that is so now. Might I suggest to the hon. Gentleman what appears to be the case, and perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong. What seems to me to be the case is that this Clause provides—and I shall use very few words, leaving out all the—[Interruption]. If hon. Gentlemen are going to do that sort of thing, I shall read them all, and I shall talk more. I do this with perfect fairness and I will read it as quickly as I can, but not if I am interrupted. [Interruption.] Certainly not! If this behaviour continues I will go on as long as I choose.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order, Mr. Wells. It is very important that I should be able to follow my hon. Friend. [Inter-


ruption.] It is really increasingly difficult if he is constantly subjected to interruptions without being accorded any protection from the Chair. Will you not afford him some protection? [Interruption.] It is almost impossible either to make oneself heard or to hear anyone else.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. William Wells): I was able to hear the hon. Member perfectly myself, and I should have thought that he was capable of protecting himself.

Mr. Hogg: But surely it is not a question of hon. Members getting protection for themselves. We can all do that if we are outraged. It is a question of the Chair affording hon. Members the protection to which they are entitled. Are we now to understand from your Ruling that in future hon. Members must look to themselves for protection, and that they can no longer look to the Chair?

The Temporary Chairman: I have already stated that I was able to hear the hon. Member, and I certainly did not think the interruptions had reached such a stage that they called for my intervention.

Mr. Pickthorn: I want to put a rather difficult point. I think that I have argued, so far this evening, quite fairly. I will read as few words as are necessary:
All persons voting…shall do so in person…except in so far as this section makes exceptions for——
And then, in my submission, what the Amendment intended to do was to make the particular circumstances, near the top of page 1813 of the Amendment Paper, alternative to the "fact" of line 36. Does the Under-Secretary agree that that was the intention? What I suggest is, that the draftsman's intention was defeated, partly by the fact that sub-paragraph (v) is so much longer than the other similar subparagraphs; and partly by the fact that the draftsman has here inserted the word "or," as he has between the other 1.1brnatives listed. The intrusive "Or" is the more unfortunate and misleading, since there is already in line 29 the word "or." It makes it very difficult when you say A or B or C, to know when C is being an alternative to B or to A. For the less easily amused hon. Members it is not a very difficult piece of logic, and it has not been satisfactorily explained to

the Committee. In my submission it would be disgraceful if this Committee passed a Bill of this sort without having clearly grasped a point of that kind.
I am not what the. Under-Secretary called a "usually subtle lawyer," though I would not dare to describe myself as an unusually subtle non-lawyer. I hope I have made this clear, though I may, of course, be mistaken. If it is clear, but I am mistaken, I hope that someone on the Treasury Bench will correct me. If the point as I have put it, is clear and is well taken, then I do suggest to the Treasury Bench that this Amendment is not acceptable; that it ought not to have been nut on the Order Paper in this form, and that is was a necessary and proper part of the duty of the Committee to make plain that this Amendment will not do. I suggest that it ought to be withdrawn.

Mr. Maude: There is the possibility of a most hideous mistake in this Clause. I have been in consultation with my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), who is absolutely right about the copulative verb; and if I may say so, the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), with-his great fluency, is clearly right also about the "fact" in 8 (i) (b, v). It would be appalling if this was not put right. I hope that the Attorney-General will notice that it is wrong to put the copulative verb in the singular. Hon. Members will see in the Amendment, which is well-intentioned, that the words "the particular circumstances" are in the plural. Therefore, we must read it in this way:
All persons voting…except in so far as this Section makes exceptions for—
(b) those unable…
for one of the following reasons—
or the particular circumstances of that person's employment on the date of the poll by the returning officer for some other constituency…
Then we must have the word "are"—
.…for a purpose connected with the election in that constituency.…

Mr. P. Roberts: I wish to take up the point made by the Under-Secretary when he referred to the returning officer for some other constituency. He said that the returning officer for his own constituency was covered by paragraph (b, v). Surely, that refers to a General Election. Am I right in thinking that the returning officer in a by-election, or the person


employed by him, if he goes out to some other constituency, will not have the protection of paragraph (b, v)? That seems to be a logical argument. Why do the words, "at a General Election" appear in line 27 when they do not appear in lines 20, 21 or 22? Apparently a constable is covered by paragraph (b, iii). Why does the word "constable" not appear in the Amendment? That seems quite illogical. My argument is that if this Clause is approved as drafted it will be impossible to hold a by-election under paragraph (b, v) on the same basis as an ordinary election under paragraph (b, iii).

3.0 a.m.

Mr. J. Foster: The Under-Secretary was quite right to explain the purpose of this Amendment. The only point on which he was wrong is that the Amendment is not grammatical because it is governed by the words "……the fact that." Taken with the Amendment, paragraph (b, v) would read:
.…the fact that.…
if we leave out the word "or"—
.…the particular circumstances of that person's employment.
I suggest that the first three words demand the use of a verb. "Particular circumstances" cannot follow grammatically on "the fact that." They could follow the word "reasons" in (b). The hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) and the hon. Gentleman the senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) were quite right in saying it should be a separate paragraph. It must be, as long as a verb is missing in the sub-paragraph.
It seems very strange, and I would be interested to know what the Government Front Bench, in the cold light of morning, will think when they read that sentence with the Amendment in it. The Amendment must be governed by the words "the fact that." I think the Parliamentary Secretary was a little bit agreeable because he said there was something to be said for putting it in a separate paragraph. The significance is that it does not make grammatical sense in this subparagraph. It is obvious that if you have five reasons about people you do not tack the sixth reason on to the five.

Mr. Rankin: On a point of Order. I would like to ask in all serious less if there is no protection for

the Committee in the face of this continued irrelevant futility?

The Temporary Chairman: I do not think that is a point of Order. I think the hon. Gentleman's speech is quite relevant.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. Was it not an impertinent reflection on the Chair for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Chair was not discharging its proper function of restraining irrelevancy.

The Temporary Chairman: I am afraid that if the Chairman had to restrain all irrelevant futility the debate would not proceed at a very rapid pace.

Mr. Hogg: Surely, it is the normal function of the Chair to restrain irrelevant futility? Are we to understand from your Ruling, Sir, that in future hon. Members will be free to pursue irrelevant futility without intervention from the Chair? If so, I shall be the first to avail myself of the opportunity.

The Temporary Chairman: It depends on how far it is taken.

Mr. Foster: It is very sad indeed that a speech which was trying to be relevant and trying to point out difficulties of grammar should be so interrupted. It is difficult to make a drafting point in public if lots of hon. Members do not follow you. It is also difficult to make a drafting point when people are not taking the matter seriously. It is also difficult to make a drafting point when hon. Members interrupt. It is also difficult to make a drafting point when the Front Bench will not understand what one is trying to explain. I see the Under-Secretary very kindly smiling at me. I do not think he dealt with the point. The words "the particular circumstances" are governed by the words "the fact that." The word "by" must have an alternative to some-thing. It could be the alternative to "constituency," but it is not. It could be the alternative to "returning officer," which it is not. It could be the alternative to "that person," which it is not. It must be the alternative to "the fact that." There is nothing else to which it can be an alternative.

Mr. Willis: On a point of Order, Mr. Beaumont, is it correct for hon. Members to indulge in tedious repetition such as we have had for three-quarters of an hour?

The Deputy-Chairman: In view of the fact that I have only just returned to the Chair, I do not know what the hon. Member has been saying.

Mr. Piratin: Further to that point of Order, is it necessary for you, Mr. Beaumont, in following Mr. Wells, to go through three-quarters of an hour's tediousness before you make a Ruling?

The Deputy-Chairman: I will exercise my powers if there is undue tediousness.

Mr. Foster: I have the impression that the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) will be corrected because tediousness has never been a ground for you to give your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont. It has to be tedious repetition.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is about to get out of Order himself because he is not dealing with the Amendment.

Mr. Foster: I was getting to an important part of the argument, but owing to these interruptions I have to start again.

Division No. 111.]
AYES.
[3.10 a.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Holman, P.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
House, G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Delargy, H. J.
Hoy, J.


Alpass, J. H.
Diamond, J
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Attewell, H. C.
Dodds, N. N
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Austin, H. Lewis
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hughes, H. D, (W'lverh'pton, W)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Bacon, Miss A.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Barton, C.
Durbin, E. F. M.
Janner, B.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Dye, S.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Berry, H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Johnston, D. H.


Beswick, F.
Edelman, M.
Jones, D. T, (Hartlepool)


Bing, G. H. C.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Binns, J.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Blackburn, A. R.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Keenan, W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Kenyon, C.


Bottomley, A. G.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Bowies, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Fairhurst, F.
Levy, B. W.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Farthing, W. J.
Lewis, A, W. J. (Upton)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Bramall, E. A.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Lindgren, G. S.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Brown, George (Belper)
Foot, M. M.
Longden, F.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Forman, J. C.
Lyne, A. W.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McGhee, H. G.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Gibson, C. W.
Mack, J. D.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Gilzean, A
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Champion, A. J.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
McLeavy, F.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Cobb, F. A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Collindridge, F.
Gunter, R. J.
Mayhew, C. P.


Collins, V. J.
Guy, W. H.
Mellish, R. J.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Crawley, A.
Hale, Leslie
Mikardo, Ian


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R


Daggar, G.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mitchison, G. R.


Daines, P.
Hardman, D. R.
Monslow, W.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Moody, A. S.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Herbison, Miss M.
Morley, R.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not necessary for the hon. Gentleman to give his speech again, and it is not for him to decide what is "tedious repetition."

Mr. Foster: I had hoped, Sir, that you would be interested in the alternative. We are told that this is adding a sixth reason but it is not. The sixth reason must be put in a separate paragraph and I think it is a pity, as has been pointed out, that we have not had the benefit of a lawyer. It is easy for a layman on the Front Bench to say something—[An HON. MEMBER: "Under-Secretary"]—Yes, I think that is right, but it is a pity to read a Clause which makes no sense. It is easy to see what it is aiming at and there is no difficulty in understanding its aim at all. But the difficulty is in putting into the Subsection a sentence which ends in the air.

Mr. Whiteley: Mr. Whiteley rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 199: Noes, 63.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Warbey, W N


Moyle, A.
Segal, Dr. S.
Watkins, T E


Mulvey, A
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Weitzman, D.


Nally, W.
Sharp, Granville
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
West, D. G.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Simmons, C. J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Orbach, M.
Smith, C (Colchester)
Wilkes, L.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Solley, L. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Pargiter, G. A.
Sorensen, R. W.
Willey, F T (Sunderland)


Parkin, B. T.
Soskice, Sir Frank
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Steele, T.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove).


Pearson, A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Peart, T. F.
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Perrins, W.
Symonds, A. L.
Willis, E.


Piratin, P.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wyatt, W


Pritt, D. N.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Yates, V. F.


Randall, H. E.
Thurtle, Ernest
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Ranger, J.
Tiffany, S.
Zilliacus, K


Rankin, J.
Tolley, L.



Reeves, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Walker, G. H.





NOES:


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Mullan, Lt. C. H.


Amory, D Heathcoat
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Astor, Hon. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Odey, G. W.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Grimston, R. V.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bossom, A. C.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Pickthorn, K


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Prescott, Stanley


Butcher, H. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S C. (Hillhead)


Byers, Frank
Kendall, W. D.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Challen, C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robinson, Roland


Channon, H.
Linstead, H. N.
Spence, H. R.


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Cuthbert, W. N.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Studholme, H. G.


Davidson, Viscountess
Maclean, F. H. R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Drayson, G B.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Wadsworth, G.


Duthie, W. S.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fox, Sir G.
Maude, J. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Medlicott, Brigadier F
Major Conant and


Gage, C.
Mellor, Sir J.
Major Ramsay.

Question put accordingly: those words be there inserted."

Division No. 112.]
AYES.
[3.19 a.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Dumpleton, C. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Durbin, E. F. M


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Byers, Frank
Dye, S.


Alpass, J. H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.


Attewell, H. C.
Champion, A. J.
Edelman, M.


Austin, H. Lewis
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Ayrlon Gould, Mrs. B.
Cobb, F. A.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)


Bacon, Miss A.
Collindridge, F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)


Barton, C
Collins, V. J.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Berry, H.
Crawley, A.
Fairhurst, F


Beswick, F
Crossman, R. H. S.
Farthing, W. J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Daggar, G.
Fernyhough, E.


Binns, J
Daines, P.
Field, Capt. W. J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E)


Blenkinsop, A.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Fool M M


Bottomley, A. G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Forman, J. C.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Delargy, H. J.
Gibson, C. W.


Bramall, E. A.
Diamond, J.
Gilzean, A


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Dodds, N. N.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Brown, George (Belper)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Brown, T J (Ince)
Dugdale, J. (W, Bromwich)
Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)

That The Committee divided: Ayes, 204; Noes, 59.

Gunter, R. J.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Sorensen, R. W.


Guy, W. H.
Mitchison, G. R.
Soskice, Sir Frank


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Monslow, W.
Sparks, J A


Hale, Leslie
Moody, A. S.
Steele, T.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Morley, R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hardman, D. R.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Symonds, A. L.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Moyle, A.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Herbison, Miss M.
Mulvey, A
Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Nally, W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Holman, P
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


House, G.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hoy, J.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Thurtle, Ernest


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Tiffany, S.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, M
Tolley, L.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Parkin, B. T.
Wadsworth, G.


Janner, B.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Warbey, W. N.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Watkins, T. E.


Johnston, D. H.
Pearson, A.
Weitzman, D.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Peart, T F
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Perrins, W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Piratin, P.
West, D. G.


Keenan, W.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)


Kendall, W. D.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Kenyon, C.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Wilkes, L.


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Pritt, D. N.
Wilkins, W. A.


Levy, B. W.
Randall, H. E.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Ranger, J.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Rankin, J.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Lindgren, G. S.
Reeves, J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Longden, F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Lyne, A. W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Willis, E.


McGhee, H. G.
Royle, C.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Mack, J. D.
Segal, Dr. S.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


McLeavy, F.
Sharp, Granville
Wyatt, W.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Yates, V. F.


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Mayhem, C. P.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Zilliacus, k


Mellish, R. J.
Simmons, C. J.



Middleton, Mrs. L.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mikardo, Ian
Solley, L. J.
Mr. snow and Mr. Wallace.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T D.
Mullan, Lt. C. H.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Astor, Hon. M.
Grimston, R. V.
Odey, G. W.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Bossom, A. C.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Pickthorn, K.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Keeling, E. H.
Prescott, Stanley


Butcher, H. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Channon, H.
Linstead, H. N.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Robinson, Roland


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Spence, H. R.


Cuthbert, W. N.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Maclean, F. H. R.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Drayson, G. B.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Studholme, H. G.


Drews, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Duthie, W. S
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Touche, G. C.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Fox, Sir G.
Maude, J. C.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.



Gage, C.
Mellor, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Major Conant and Major Ramsay

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 10, line 41, after "entitled," to insert:
in pursuance of an application made.
This is merely a drafting Amendment to make it clear that "entitled" means only those who have made actual application to exercise that entitlement.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: The Under-Secretary is quite right when he says that this is a drafting Amendment. Unfortunately

the drafting appears to me not to be good. Let us examine it for a moment. The Subsection as it stands reads:
A person registered as a Service voter may vote by proxy unless either he is entitled under Subsection (4) of this Section to vote by post or …
and there is another alternative. Although strictly speaking what the Under-Secretary said may be right, I do not think that anyone could possibly mistake


the meaning of the Clause as it now stands. I do not see that the Clause needs amending at all. The Amendment makes it very much worse. Let us look at the Amendment. This is what it says:
is entitled in pursuance of an application made under
nothing is said about the application being granted. That does seem to be odd drafting, even at this time of the night. If the Under-Secretary had said:
entitled in pursuance of an application granted under Subsection (4)
that would have been meticulous and unnecessary, but it would have been accurate and would have done no harm. Even at this time of night we cannot allow this slipshod drafting to pass. It suggests, if it does not direct, that when an application is made that is all there is to it, and nobody need bother whether for this purpose it is granted or not. I suggest that although it may be clear enough what is meant by the Amendment, the meaning was clear enough before the Amendment was proposed, and that the Committee would be ill-advised to substitute for a fairly good piece of drafting a piece which is considerably worse.
The Home Secretary should do what he said on the last Amendment he was going to do, and that is to reconsider this Amendment. If he had withdrawn his Amendment, if only to put it in better form, he could have saved nearly an hour of the Committee's time. He admitted that there was room for redrafting in that Amendment, but for some reason it was not consistent with his dignity to withdraw the Amendment. Therefore, we had to spend an hour trying to convince him what the trouble was. If the right hon. Gentleman withdrawn this Amendment, no one will complain. Otherwise, as the discussion proceeds, even more difficulties may be found in the wording. At least, the difficulty, I have expressed is a real one, and I suggest that we should not put into an Act of Parliament of this importance any drafting which is not plain and has more than one meaning.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. Pritt: Surely, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wholly and absolutely wrong. Subsection (4) provides exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman means. One makes an appli-

cation and thereby gets entitlement. This Amendment is just a little ridiculous. If we are to have an Amendment, the Amendment moved by the Government is the only possible one, because all that the Subsection does is to make an application.

Mr. Reid: Surely, the hon. and learned Member does not suggest that merely to make an application, no matter how irrelevant, entitles one to get on the absent-voter roll, That cannot be so. Indeed, Clause 9 (1) deals with what happens after the application is made. One must comp13, with the terms of Clause 9 (1), and must get the application granted under that Subsection before becoming an absent voter. Therefore merely to refer to the making of an application under Clause 8 (4) gets us nowhere at all.

Mr. Pritt: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman says demonstrates how well it will work as amended, and how wrong he is. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will take the trouble to read Clause 8 (4) he will find that, if we cannot do what is necessary under Clause 9 (2), the only method is by an application made under that Subsection (4).

Mr. H. Strauss: The hon. and learned Member is not right. If he will look at the proviso to Subsection (4) he will see that the application may fail. Therefore I support what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend on the Front Bench. I would go further in one respect. Apart from the difficulty he has pointed out, I think the words "in pursuance of" are wrong. The entitlement is not in pursuance of Subsection (4). What the Government wish to do, I think, is to say that the voter shall not come under Subsection (2) unless he satisfies what is laid down in Subsection (4). To say that he is "entitled in pursuance of Subsection (4)" is wholly inaccurate.

Mr. P. Roberts: When I refer to Subsection (4), I find that two things must happen.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Member is seeing double all right.

Mr. Roberts: It says that the application must be made, and secondly, that an address must be furnished. This refers


to "in pursuance of an application made" but does not mention anything about the furnishing of an address. It seems to me that some difficulty may arise if merely an application is made and the address is not furnished. If this Amendment is to be put in, we should have reference not only to an application but also to the furnishing of an address.

Mr. Hogg: The question whether the Government are prepared to reconsider this Amendment is really the acid test of their sincerity. Subsection (2, a) seems to be quite free from any criticism which has been levelled at the Amendment. What is wrong with that Subsection? So far as I can see there is nothing wrong

Division No. 113.]
AYES.
[3.38 a.m.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mack, J. D.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fairhurst, F.
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Alpass, J. H
Farthing, W. J
McLeavy, F.


Attewell, H. C.
Fernyhough, E
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)


Austin, H. Lewis
Fletcher, E. G M (Islington, E.)
Mathers Rt Hon George


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Foot, M. M.
Mellish, R. J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Forman, J C.
Middleton, Mrs. L


Barton, C.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mikardo, Ian


Bechervaise, A. E
George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R


Berry, H.
Gibson, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R.


Beswick, F.
Gilzean, A.
Monslow, W


Bing, G. H. C.
Goodrich, H. E.
Moody, A. S


Binns, J.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Morley, R


Blackburn, A. R.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Blenkinsop, A.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Moyle, A.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gunter, R. J.
Nally, W.


Braddock, Mrs. E M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Guy, W. H.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Braddock, T (Mitcham)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.)


Bramall, E A
Hale, Leslie
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Brook D (Halifax)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hannan, W (Maryhill)
Orbach, M.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hardman, D R
Palmer, A M F


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pargiter, G. A.


Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)
Herbison, Miss M
Parkin, B. T


Byers, Frank
Hewitson, Capt. M
Paton, Mrs. F (Rushcliffe)


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Holman, P
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Champion, A J
House, G.
Peart, T F


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hoy, J
Perrins, W


Cobb, F A
Hudson, J. H (Ealing, W.)
Piratin, P


Collindridge, F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F


Collins, V. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Crawley, A
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pritt, D. N.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Randall, H. E


Daggar, G
Janner, B.
Ranger, J.


Daines, P
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Rankin, J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Johnston, D H
Reeves, J.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Delargy, H. J.
Keenan, W
Royle, C


Dodds, N. N
Kendall, W D
Segal, Dr. S


Driberg, T E. N
Kenyon, C.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Sharp, Granville


Durbin, E. F. M.
Levy, B. W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn Sir H. (St. Helens)


Dye, S.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Simmons, C. J.


Edelman, M.
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Snow, J. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Longden, F.
Solley, L. J.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lyne, A. W.
Soskice, Sir Frank

with it. The Under-Secretary has suggested nothing wrong with it, and I have heard no one on any side of the Committee suggest that there is anything wrong with it. Not content with that, the Under-Secretary now seeks to insert words to which there is an objection which seems to be of a really cogent kind. I cannot for the life of me see, if the Under-Secretary is sincere in this matter—which I am sure he is—why he does not immediately withdraw this Amendment which is open to objection and revert to the earlier matter which is free from any objection.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 198; Noes, 58.

Sparks, J. A.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Steele, T.
Wadsworth, G.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chisleburst)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Sylvester, G. O
Warbey, W N.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Symonds, A. L.
Watkins, T. E.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Weitzman, D.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wells, P. L (Faversham)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Wyatt, W.


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
West, D G
Yates, V. F.


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Thurtle, Ernest
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Zilliacus, K


Tiffany, S.
Wilkes, L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tolley, L.
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. Pearson and


Ungoed-Thomas, L
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Mr. Richard Adams.




NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Galbraith, Cmdr. T D
Mullan, Lt. C. H


Astor, Hon. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Grimston, R. V.
Odey, G. W.


Boles, Lt.-Col D. C. (Wells)
Harris, F W (Croydon, N.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Bossom, A C.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Pickthorn, K.


Butcher, H W
Keeling, E H.
Prescott, Stanley


Challen, C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Channon, H
Linstead, H. N.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Robinson, Roland


Cuthbert, W. N.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Spence, H. R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Maclean, F H. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Drayson, G B
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Studholme, H. G.


Duthie, W. S.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Touche, G. C.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marlowe, A. A H.
Wheatley, Colonel M J. (Dorset, E.)


Fox, Sir G.
Maude, J. C
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fraser, Sir. I. (Lonsdale)
Medlicott, Brigadier F
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gage, C
Mellor, Sir. J
Commander Agnew and




Major Conant.

Mr. Piratin: I beg to move, in page 11, line 7, at the end, to insert:
or (c) of blindness or any other physical incapacity.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Diamond): I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we considered at the same time the next Amendment, in line 9, after "and," to insert:
if within paragraphs (a) or (b) of this subsection

Mr. Piratin: The second Amendment is consequential upon the first. The purpose is to include in Subsection (3) the blind and disabled as persons entitled to vote by proxy. It is true that under Subsection (4) they are permitted to vote by post. I suggest that it would be most helpful if they were allowed to vote by proxy. In the case of the blind, they can neither write out nor send off the letter themselves. They need some other person to do that for them, and the question of corruption might easily arise. If the Minister would be good enough to accept the principle of this Amendment, no doubt he could introduce more appropriate terminology. In the case of a limbless person, once again he could not send off the letter. Someone would have to do

that for him. I suggest that voting by proxy in cases of this nature is far better that voting by post.

Mr. Ede: A blind person already has the option of voting by post or of going to the polling station where he can vote in person with the assistance of the presiding officer or of a companion or some other person of his choice. I had the misfortune to have a mother who was blind for the last eight years of her life. She was particularly keen on going to the poll to record her vote at Parliamentary and municipal elections. I accompanied her and I acted in the position of a person named in the last of the alternatives I have mentioned. Hitherto, proxy voting by civilians has been allowed only in the case of persons likely to be at sea or out of the United Kingdom on the day of the poll. I should have thought that it was desirable to restrict proxy voting as much as possible, and that it would be sufficient that people now will have the alternative either of going to the poll, and having special facilities made for them to enable them to vote, or of voting by post. A person who is going to vote for them by proxy, may just as well post the vote for them as attend at the polling station. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is not


desirable to extend facilities for proxy voting beyond those absolutely necessary to ensure that votes shall be recorded.

Mr. P. Roberts: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) and the Home Secretary and I would like a further explanation from the mover of the Amendment as to its intention. It seems to me the point he was making is this. In the case of a blind person, he might write out a letter which he could not see and then some person to whom he handed it, might alter the mark, or alternatively tear the letter up or not post it, and so the intention of the blind person would not be recorded. I thought that was his main object. He says rather than do that, lest there be a chance of, I think the word he used was, corruption, there should be a proxy who could vote for him in the booth. Suppose I am given the proxy to vote. If I tore up the letter, I could also vote in the opposite way to what the blind person wanted. I do not see how the mover thinks that by substituting a proxy for a letter, he is going to get over that suggestion of corruption.
My second point is this. I appreciate that where someone is ill or cannot write a letter it might be possible for that person to give proxy by word of mouth so the vote could be recorded. I would be more sympathetic to that suggestion if the mover could define the words "any other physical incapacity." That is much too wide. It might be physical incapacity to make writing impossible. Then I could follow his argument, but by making it so wide he does make it very difficult for one to support his Amendment. I should like if possible to have a further explanation on the point of corruption. I would like to know whether the mover would be prepared to make an Amendment on the Report stage to define the words "any other physical incapacity."

Mr. J. Foster: I do not quite understand why the mover of the Amendment pays attention to whether people have had physical disabilities. I understand that one of the conditions before a man can vote by proxy is that he is likely to be at sea or out of the United Kingdom. The Clause says that a person, in order to be entitled to vote by proxy has to be likely to be at sea or out of the United Kingdom, and then fulfil other conditions. I do not

quite see why a person who is disabled from going to the poll, should require a proxy.

Mr. Piratin: I spoke briefly partly because we have had a large number of lengthy speeches and partly because I did not think it necessary to explain the matter at greater length. If the hon. Gentleman will look at Clause 8 subparagraph (1) (c) he will see that the paragraph deals with the blind or those suffering from any other physical incapacity. Also on page 11, subsection (4), that such persons may vote by post. I am asking in my Amendment not that all the categories from (a) to (e) but those in the particular category (c) should have the opportunity to vote by proxy. That is the purpose of my Amendment. Is that quite clear?

Mr. Foster: I am rather inclined to agree with the hon. Member's statement, but I do not understand his Amendment. In Subsection (4) the persons mentioned are those in categories (a) to (e). I thought he was seeking to make an Amendment in Subsection (3). Persons blind, or physically incapacitated are allowed to vote by post, and he is suggesting that they should vote by proxy. But as the restriction on people in Subsection (3) is limited to those at sea or out of the United Kingdom, it is difficult to follow why he wants somebody who is likely to be at sea, or out of the United Kingdom——

Mr. Piratin: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman, I would remind him that the Chairman pointed out that both of the Amendments should be taken together. Will he look at the second Amendment?

Mr. Foster: The second Amendment is to insert:
if within paragraphs (a) or (b) of this subsection.
That is after "and" so the voter applies to be treated as an absent voter who is likely to be at sea or out of the United Kingdom. I am sorry, but it still applies. I sympathise with the hon. Member's Amendment and I am really trying to be helpful, but it does read like that. What he wants, r think, is that a blind person, or a person physically incapacitated, should be allowed to vote by proxy if he cannot get to the polling station, but the second seems to be limited in its scope. I do not know if he agrees with me now. With regard to blind persons, there is a danger that if they vote


by post, their vote may be falsified, or something put on their paper which the blind person cannot see. If the person who is blind is likely to be at sea, or out of the United Kingdom, it is reasonable he should vote by proxy or by post. But why should the person who is physically incapacitated vote by post? The reason he can vote by post is that the danger attaching to the blind person's vote, does not attach to him. The hon. Member should have put "or is likely to be at sea."

Mr. P. Roberts: That is where we all seem to have been.

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Piratin: In view of the Minister's statement earlier that this matter will be looked into, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Diamond): Before I call the Amendment to page 11, line 24, in the name of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake), and his hon. Friends, I suggest it might be convenient for the Committee to discuss with it, the Amendment to page 11 line 37, also in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, and the one in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for North-West Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet).

Mr. Grimston: I am not sure whether it is appropriate to discuss the last one.

The Temporary Chairman: I suggested this procedure for the convenience of the Committee. If it is not desired to discuss the three together, the first two can be taken together.

Mr. Grimston: It would be convenient to discuss the two together, but not the third.

The Temporary Chairman: Then I suggest the two be discussed together.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 11, line 24, leave out "area," and insert "polling district."
It will be seen that one of the provisions which this Clause makes is that under Subsection (1, e), those no longer residing at their qualifying address can apply to vote by post. Under Subsection (4) certain provisions under which this

can be done are set out, and Subsection (4, b) says:
a person shall not be entitled to vote by post on the ground that he no longer resides at his qualifying address if at the time of his application he resides at an address in the same area 
The object of this Amendment is to take out the word "area" and substitute "polling district" to ensure that voters shall not have to go an undue distance from their homes to exercise their votes. That is a very proper provision if only for the reason—and here I think I should be expressing a view held on all sides of the Committee—that we want to do everything we can to encourage people to exercise their votes. One often hears that said by people at elections, when they exhort people to exercise their right, irrespective of party. One of the things which would deter people would be if they had to go an extremely inconvenient distance to the polling stations.
This area is itself set out at present in Subsection (4) and defined in Subsection (7), and we are here particularly concerned with paragraph (a) which lays it down that two addresses shall be deemed to be in the same area if they are both in the area of the same borough. That is where the second Amendment in my name, in conjunction with this one, arises. It may be said that if you make a compressed area into a polling district, people may move a very short distance from one house to another and may then be entitled to exercise their right to vote by post and that there will be a great many frivolous applications. I think we can rule that out because it may, indeed, be much more trouble to make a frivolous application to vote by post than actually to go to the poll area on the day, but if the present definition is left in, people in some areas may, in certain instances, move from one house to another, up to as far as 15 miles and still be in the same borough. That is the case in Birmingham.
I think it would certainly be held that if anybody has to go 15 miles in order to exercise his vote, he should be allowed to make application to vote by post. As the Clause now stands, people in the borough, for example, of Birmingham may move as much as 15 miles from one house to another and would be precluded from making any application to vote by post. It seems to me that that nullifies what we want to do; which is to make


it reasonably easy for people to exercise their vote in person, and not to have to go too far from their homes. Having pointed that out, and made it clear, as we think, that there is very little risk of abuse of the privilege of voting by post, we suggest it would, in all the circumstances, be very much better to substitute the words "polling district" for the word "area." In a case of that sort, if we put in the word "polling district" it would cover the cases of the very large boroughs where people may move quite a distance and, as the Clause is drafted, they would be unable to make any application to vote by post. I shall be interested to hear what the Home Secretary has to say upon this point but for the reasons I have given, I think it would be entirely reasonable to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Ede: When the Elections and Jurors Bill was before the House in 1945, a similar Amendment was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) and was supported by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). At that time, this whole subject was under the consideration of the committee which was presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver). That committee has since reported. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) whose name is attached to this Amendment, was a member of that committee. They considered the points and made no recommendation for a change in the law.
If we take this word "polling district," there are some very small polling districts in the country. In some of the industrial boroughs there are polling districts of about 100 acres. I have one in my own constituency which is about 120 acres. I think it would be going a great deal too far to enable persons who move out of that polling district into an adjoining polling district to be able, for that reason, to claim to exercise a postal vote. The same applies to the effort to remove the word "borough," which I understand is in some ways an alternative proposal to the first. There again, boroughs vary considerably in size. We have had no indication that any hardship has been caused by the existing law. We have had no complaints at all about the way it works, and I would suggest

that the best way for a person to vote is by attendance at the polling booth wherever that is possible, so that his vote can be recorded in the ordinary way.
If a very wide extension of the postal voting facilities took place, this would undoubtedly add very considerably to the heavy work that the returning officers and their staffs have to perform at the time of an election. We are adding considerably to their work by the requirement that in future there shall be issued an official poll card which will take up a good deal of the time of the clerical staff that will be available for returning officers. Seriously to add to the number of persons voting by post, whose papers will have to be prepared and sent to them at about the same time as the polling cards are being prepared and the ordinary work of the election is going on, would place an undoubted strain on the staffs that are likely to be available to carry out this work.
The proposals we are making in this regard are a genuine effort to meet the cases of people who would be disfranchised if the postal voting facilities were not available. I suggest that the areas which are prescribed in this Bill, and which carry on from the Elections and Jurors Act, about which we have had no complaint, in the light of experience appear to be appropriate.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I confess I am not satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's reply. I was not satisfied on the last occasion when we raised this issue on the Elections and Jurors Bill. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has applied his mind to the effect of the rejection of this Amendment. I hope the Committee will follow this, because this is a point of substance. Subsection (1, c) refers to persons
unable or likely to be unable, by reason either of blindness or any other physical incapacity, to go in person to the polling station or, if able to go, to vote unaided.
I ask the Committee to bear in mind those categories and to see what are the extra facilities those people are given for voting.
They can vote by post if they are still living at their qualifying address, but they must not vote by post if they have moved from their qualifying address and are still resident in an area as defined by Subsection (7). I think the right hon.


Gentleman will agree that that means that a person who is unable through physical infirmity to go to the polling station cannot take advantage of the facility of voting by post, although his or her home may now be 15 miles from the qualifying address. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about small parishes and small boroughs. There are big boroughs, too.
I think it is clear from this Measure—at least, I hope it is clear to me, in view of the hour in the morning at which we are discussing this matter—that although the Home Secretary talks about the great extension of facilities for exercising the rights of voting, it applies only in the few cases where there has not been a change of residence within the same area as defined by Subsection (7). Ought not this Committee to go further than that, and make it easier for people, who come within categories (a) to (e), and who suffer from physical incapacity which prevents them from going in person to the polling station, to exercise the right to vote. The right hon. Gentleman has not met that case at all. He has talked a great deal about the additional burden cast upon the returning officers if they had this duty to fulfil. Are the numbers likely to be so very large? I should not have thought that the number of people who had moved from their qualifying addresses and were still within the same borough, and who came within Subsection (1) was likely to be very large. Whether they be large or small, is it not right to provide these facilities for those suffering from physical incapacity? Is any harm done by making the polling districts inside an area as described by Subsection (7)?
4.15 a.m.
In connection with this matter I am glad that we have with us once again the junior Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey). We have had some interesting observations from him about polling districts, and I should like to draw his attention to last two lines on page 11. He has told us about difficulties of getting to polling stations in his part of the world, but these people to whom I have been referring, will not be able to vote by post if their present residence is still within the same rural district in Northern Ireland as the one they occupied when the register was compiled. I should be interested to know

how he says that will operate. It seems to me if the rural districts in Northern Ireland are extensive in character, it may indeed seriously penalise the people to whom he refers.
Before we pass from this, I should like to say a word on the electoral divisions in Scotland. Perhaps I am not qualified to express any opinion about this, but one knows it is not easy to travel about on sea and land with the present facilities of our nationalised transport system. There may be cases in which someone has moved 6o miles from his former qualifying residence, but to get to the polling booth he would have to cross the sea and climb hills, using any transport that could be procured. If such persons are physically incapable nothing in paragraph (c) is going to help them to get to the polling booths. The Home Secretary adheres to this Clause. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to show some indication that he will meet us on this point, which is one of considerable substance, I fear we can only do what we did before on the Elections and jurors Bill—though I am not sure whether we divided then.

Mr. Ede: No, the Opposition withdrew the Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: We withdrew the Amendment no doubt in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would have due regard for the views we expressed. As I said just now, at that time one was considered by the Committee over which the Parliamentary Secretary presided. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, who did not hesitate to set on one side the decision of an impartial and independent body, should have shown himself reluctant to throw to one side the report of the Committee presided over by his Parliamentary Secretary when it was incorrect, in my view, in this particular.

Mr. McKie: I hope we shall have further light on this subject. The further we go in our investigation, the greater the latent dangers are shown to be and the greater the inequalities between the various parts of the country. In paragraph (c) of Subsection (7) there is laid down a definition of the area regarding change of address:
Within the area of the same parish in England or Wales, or of the same electoral division in Scotland, or of the same rural district in Northern Ireland.
In other words, the people living in the electoral divisions of Scotland and in the rural districts of Northern Ireland are to


be penalised as compared with their more fortunate brethren who live in the parishes of England and Wales. The right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the parishes of England and Wales are the smallest possible units—certainly in England; parishes are large in Wales. Hon. Members may have something more to say about that. The parish is the smallest unit so far as electoral purposes are concerned. That is the unit laid down, in their wisdom or unwisdom, by the Government's advisers as the proper definition for an address for postal voting. Surely anyone can see, when we come to discuss the entities prescribed for in Scotland and Northern Ireland, how vastly difficult the situation becomes and the greater inequalities which at once reveal themselves. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) spoke about the great number of hardships which would rest on the citizens of Northern Ireland in this respect because the unit laid down is the rural district.
My hon. and learned Friend expressed the hope we might hear something about that from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) who has lashed himself into a white heat of fury on two occasions this evening. I should have thought the hon. Gentleman was going to speak about the size of the rural districts in Northern Ireland as being the "prohibited areas," if I may put it that way, regarding change of address. I have very strong sympathy with the people of Northern Ireland in many respects, especially in so far as the proper exercise of the franchise is concerned, because I know how dearly they have always valued the franchise. But while I admire the great heart of the people of that loyal part of the British Empire, I am more concerned with the dangers that confront my own fellow-countrymen in Scotland.
I do not know how the word "electoral" will be interpreted. Perhaps the Lord Advocate will say it only relates to the voters' roll. But hon. Friends and I share some apprehension on that. If I am right in thinking that my hon. Friend is right, surely it will be at once apparent to many people that the form of words suggested here is not acceptable. Many people may be prevented, owing to a change of address, from exercising their votes in a Parliamentary election. There

is the case of my own division. It happens to be the second largest in Britain and I think I have some right to express my protest. It covers something like 1,600 to 1,700 square miles. It is very difficult in regard to geography and configuration. Many people will have to pass over mountains and hills in the way my hon. and learned Friend suggested, if no other provision is made for them to exercise their votes, if they change their residence and if the word "area" is not more closely defined. For those reasons I see some force in the hon. Gentleman's remarks as regards the parishes, and perhaps that applies in Wales. I cannot be a party to accepting the Home Secretary's assurance so far as the electorate in Scotland—the rural district areas in Northern Ireland are concerned—so I hope that the learned Law Officer will be able to reassure us and spare a crumb of comfort to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey).

Mrs. Corbet: I wish to refer to the Amendment standing in my name——
Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. It was agreed that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady should not be taken with our two Amendments. My hon. Friend drew attention to it at the time and I understood, Mr. Diamond, that you said that you would take these two Amendments first.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Diamond): I was under the impression that the hon. Lady desired to speak on the two Amendments before the Committee. I am sorry that I did not make it sufficiently clear to the hon. Lady that the Amendment in her name has not yet been called.

Mr. Keeling: The Home Secretary has pointed out that although the Committee on Electoral Registration, of which I was a member, made no recommendation on this point, I put my name to this Amendment. There is a simple explanation. The Electoral Registration Committee reported about 15 months ago, and since then I have had forceful and persuasive representations from my constituency. It has been pointed out with regard to Birmingham that if a person moves from one side of the city to another he might have to go 15 miles in order to vote. It is perfectly


true that Twickenham though incomparably more beautiful than Birmingham, is not so large. But it is large. It has a 12-mile frontage to the Thames, and as the Minister of Defence, who used to know that area very well, is aware, communications between one part of the borough and another are bad, though they might be better were it not for the monopoly of the London Transport. It is quite wrong, I think, that in a place like that, or like Birmingham, when a man who moves from one part of the borough to another part, which is inaccessible by ordinary means of transport, there should be no provision for him to vote by post.
I suggest for consideration a compromise. I quite see that where you have one polling station within, perhaps, two or three hundred yards of another, it is a little unreasonable to say that a man who moves from one district into another should not find his own way to the polling station in his old district. I suggest that, instead of the words "polling district," we should substitute the word "ward." That is to say, if anyone moves from one ward to another, either of a borough or an urban district, he would have the right to apply to vote by post. Some of these wards are extremely large. This, I suggest, would be a reasonable thing to consider. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give it consideration before we reach the next stage of the Bill.

4.30 a.m.

Mr. Spence: May I say a few words on the Scottish aspect of this Amendment. I hope that when the Home Secretary replies, he will explain on what grounds the definition of "area" is laid down in Subsection (7, c) as being a parish in England, or an electoral division in Scotland. There seems to be no comparison between these areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) referred to the large area which he happens to represent in this House, and I can substantiate all that he has said. I can also give instances where a move of 60. miles can be made, without leaving a constituency. Under the new Boundary Commission recommendations, the areas are to be enlarged in my part of the world. The distance one will be able to move while remaining in the same constituency, is going to be even greater.

Anyone who lives in the area which I may possibly represent in the future will be able to move a distance of something like 85 miles from one extreme point to the other. I do suggest that in view of the difficulties of communication something should be done. After all, this Bill is supposed to give the people adequate representation, and this is an Amendment to make it operative in the fairest and fullest sense. I suggest that, particularly where the area which is defined in Scotland, is to be a whole constituency, that in resisting the Amendment, the Secretary of State is not helping this Bill to secure adequate representation of the people.

Mr. P. Roberts: I support what my hon. Friends have said, and I want particularly to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to the map which appears in the Boundary Commission's Report with regard to the borough of Sheffield. The area of the city of Sheffield, from one end to other, which I have worked out by means of the scale given at the foot of the map, is more than 10 miles. The point which my hon. Friend has put is that if someone living, say, in Shard Green were to move to the other end of the city—we shall say to the village of Dawe—he would lose his right to vote by post. He may be infirm, or ill, but he would have to catch the bus to the Wicker, and then get a tram to the centre of the town. He would have to take another bus along the road, and then walk up into the village. I suggest that is most inconvenient.
Of course, it could be done the other way round. If someone was living in the Hillsborough Division of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence, and wanted to go up to Woodhouse, he would have a much more difficult journey. He would have to go right into the middle of the city, through many congested areas, and then take a tram and bus for another three or four miles. I do not want to over-emphasise this point. There is the instance of somebody travelling from the Hallam Division across to the other side of Sheffield in the opposite direction. In the case of someone living near the boundary with Rotherham, if they were to move over the road a matter of two or three yards, they would have the right to vote by post because they would have gone out of one


area into another. If the Home Secretary will not accept the argument about the polling division being too small, he might well consider the suggestion in regard to the wards. In that way, one might avoid a great deal of the difficulty of travelling in the already overcrowded transport of the city of Sheffield. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I wish to support my hon. and right hon. Friends in this matter. To relate an area of a parish in England with an electoral division in Scotland is purely fantastic. I do not want to go into detail except to say that distances in my constituency are tremendous. If one were to go from one end to the other, one would find that 'Sheffield was left far behind.

Mr. P. Roberts: I must point out that in no case would the City of Sheffield be left far behind my hon. and gallant Friend's Scottish constituency.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: That is perhaps outwith the Amendment. The fact of the matter is that it is inequitable to relate a parish area in England to an electoral division in Scotland. I hope that. the Under-Secretary will reply to this discussion because, being a Scot and thereby helping the Home Secretary immensely—although his divergence from family tradition politically has landed him in Grimsby as opposed to a good Scottish seat—he may at least know the circumstances and back up what we are saying.

Commander Galbraith: I support the pleas put forward by my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Scotland. I would remind the Committee that in the city of Glasgow we have an area very nearly as great as the city of Birmingham. Kipling wrote:
Oh roads we used to tread,
Fra' Maryhill to Pollokshaws—fra' Govan to Parkhead.
That may have represented the size of the city of Glasgow in those days, but the Lord Advocate will know that the city has extended considerably since then. While it was a long tread from Maryhill to Pollokshaws, it is very much further now from one side of the city to the other. I would like to direct the Lord Advocates' attention to the fact, and ask whether he considers it is really reasonable

to expect people to move these long distances. What surprised me is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not intervened, because here is a matter of great importance to Scotland. He must be aware of what the electoral division is in size, so that we might compare it with the parish in England or the rural district in Northern Ireland. It is only right and courteous for him to intervene and tell us his interpretation or give us some explanation as to why this seemingly most unjust provision has been inserted. I know he is aware of the facts and he must be able to explain them from his very great knowledge of these matters. I rise not only for the purpose of drawing the attention of the Committee to the very large areas involved in Scotland, but also to draw attention to the fact that the Lord Advocate has been asked to interpret this Clause and I hope he will be good enough to do so.

Mr. McKie: I hope the Lord Advocate will respond to the invitation which has been made. It is very clear how strong feeling is, regarding the unfair way the Clause would operate. Here we are at twenty minutes to five in the morning having made four very strong pleas to him to say something and clear away these doubts. I would like the people to know that the Lord Advocate merely remains sitting on the Treasury bench and makes no effort to clear away the reasonable doubts which exist in our minds. Although the hour is very late and although I do not suppose that these debates can be given much publicity through the Press, I hope that so far as such opportunities exist, the fullest publicity will be given to this in Scotland. I must emphasise to members for English constituencies and those in Ulster that I share their apprehensions, but in Scotland it is important that the widest publicity should be given. I hope it will be noted in Scotland that the Lord Advocate made no effort to let the people there know where they stand on this matter, when he is on the Front Bench and is responsible for piloting a Bill which is supposed to provide better representation of the people. What a farce.

Mr. Whiteley: Mr. Whiteley rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

Division No. 114.]
AYES.
[4.45 a.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Hale, Leslie
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Alpass, J. H.
Hardman, D. R.
Pritt, D. N.


Attewell, H. C.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Randall, H. E.


Austin, H. Lewis
Herbison, Miss M.
Ranger, J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Rankin, J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Holman, P.
Reeves, J.


Barton, C.
House, G.
Reid, T, (Swindon)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hoy, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Berry, H.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Beswick, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Royle, C.


Bing, G. H C.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Segal, Dr. S.


Binns, J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Blackburn, A. R.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Sharp, Granville


Boardman, H.
Janner, B.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M, (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Johnston, D. H.
Simmons, C. J.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Snow, J. W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Solley, L. J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Keenan, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Kenyon, C.
Soskice, Sir Frank


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Sparks, J. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Levy, B. W.
Steele, T.


Champion, A. J.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lindgren, G. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Cobb, F. A.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Symonds, A. L.


Collindridge, F.
Longden, F.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Collins, V. J.
Lyne, A. W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Crawley, A.
Mack, J. D.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Daggar, G.
McLeavy, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Daines, P.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Tiffany, S.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Tolley, L.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Mellish, R. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Delargy, H. J.
Mikardo, Ian
Warbey, W. N.


Diamond, J.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Watkins, T. E.


Dodds, N. N.
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, D.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Monslow, W.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Moody, A. S.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Morley, R.
West, D. G.


Edelman, M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Moyle, A.
Wilkes, L.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mulvey, A.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Nally, W.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Fairhurst, F.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Farthing, W. J.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Fernyhough, E.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Field, Capt. W. J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Foot, M. M.
Orbach, M.
Willis, E.


Forman, J. C.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Pargiter, G. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gibson, C. W.
Parkin, B. T.
Wyatt, W.


Gilzean, A.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Yates, V. F.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Pearson, A.
Zilliacus, K.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Peart, T. F.



Gunter, R. J.
Perrins, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Guy, W. H.
Piratin, P.
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)


Astor, Hon. M.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Grimston, R. V.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Davidson, Viscountess
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)


Bossom, A. C.
Drayson, G. B.
Hogg, Hon. Q.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Drewe, C.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)


Butcher, H. W.
Duthie, W. S.
Keeling, E. H.


Byers, Frank
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Kendall, W. D.


Challen, C.
Fox, Sir G.
Linstead, H. N.


Channon, H.
Gage, C.
Lloyd, Selwym (Wirral)


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 186; Noes, 59.

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Strauss, H G (English Universities)


Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Peto, Brig C. H. M
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Pickthorn, K.
Touche, G. C.


Marlowe, A A H
Prescott, Stanley
Wadsworth, G.


Maude, J. C.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Reid, Rt. Hon J. S. C. (HillHead)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Mellor, Sir. J.
Roberts, P. G (Ecclesall)



Mullan, Lt. C. H
Robinson, Roland
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Noble, Comdr A. H. P.
Spence, H R
Commander Agnew and


Odey, G W
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M
Mr Studholme

Question put accordingly, 'area' stand part of the Clause"

Division No. 115.]
AYES.
[4.53 a.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Guy, W H
Piratin, P.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A V
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hale, Leslie
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Alpass, J. H.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Attewell, H. C.
Hardman, D R
Pritt, D. N


Austin, H. Lewis
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Randall, H. E.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Herbison, Miss M.
Ranger, J.


Bacon, Miss A
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Rankin, J.


Barton, C
Holman, P
Reeves, J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
House, G
Reid, T (Swindon)


Berry, H
Hoy, J
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Beswick, F
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Bing, G. H C
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Royle, C.


Binns, J.
Hughes, H. D (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Segal, Dr. S.


Blackburn, A. R
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Shackleton, E. A A


Boardman, H.
Irving, W J (Tottenham, N.)
Sharp, Granville


Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)
Janner, B.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn Sir H (St. Helens)


Braddock, Mrs. E M (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Johnston, D. H.
Simmons, C. J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Jones, D. T (Hartlepool)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Brown, George (Belper)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Snow, J W


Brown, T J (Ince)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Solley L J


Bruce, Maj. D. W T.
Keenan, W
Sorensen, R. W


Butler, H W (Hackney, S.)
Kendall, W D.
Soskice, Sir. Frank


Castle, Mrs. B A.
Kenyon, C.
Sparks, J A


Champion, A J
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Steele, T


Chetwynd, G. R.
Levy, B. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Cobb, F A
Lewis, A W. J (Upton)
Sylvester, G O


Collindridge, F.
Lindgren, G. S
Symonds, A. L


Collins, V. J
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, H B (Mansfield)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Longden, F
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Crawley, A.
Lyne, A. W
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Crossman, R. H. S.
McGhee, H. G.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Daggar, G
Mack, J. D.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Daines, P
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Thurtle, Ernest


Dalton, Rt Hon. H.
McLeavy, F.
Tiffany, S


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Tolley, L.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Mathers, Rt Hon. George
Ungoed-Thomas, L


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mellish, R. J.
Vernon, Maj W F


Delargy, H. J.
Middleton, Mrs L.
Warbey, W N


Diamond, J.
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, T E


Dodds, N. N
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Weitzman, D


Driberg, T E. N
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Dumpleton, C W.
Monslow, W.
Wells, W T (Walsall)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J C
Moody, A. S.
West, D G.


Edelman, M
Morley, R.
Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wilkes, L.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Moyle, A.
Willey, F T (Sunderland)


Evans, S N (Wednesbury)
Mulvey, A
Willey, O G. (Cleveland)


Fairhurst, F.
Nally, W
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Farthing, W. J
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Fernyhough, E.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Field, Capt. W J
Nicholls, H R. (Stratford)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Foot, M M.
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)
Willis, E


Forman, J. C.
Orbach, M.
Wills, Mrs E. A.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Palmer, A. M. F
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Gibson, C W.
Pargiter, G A.
Wyatt, W.


Gilzean, A.
Parkin, B. T
Yates, V. F


Gordon-Walker, P C.
Paton, J (Norwich)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Greenwood, A W. J (Heywood)
Pearson, A.
Zilliacus, K


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Peart, T F



Gunter, R. J.
Perrins, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins.

That The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 57.

NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gage, C.
Odey, G. W.


Astor, Hon. M.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T D
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)
Peto, Brig. C. H M


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Pickthorn, K.


Bossom, A. C.
Grimsten, R V
Prescott, Stanley


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Harris, F W (Croydon, N.)
Ramsay, Maj S.


Butcher, H. W
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Reid, Rt. Hon J S. C. (Hillhead)


Byers, Frank
Hutchison, Col. J R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Challen, C.
Keeling, E. H.
Robinson, Roland


Channon, H.
Linstead, H. N.
Spence, H. R


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Col M


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lucas-Tootn, Sir H.
Strauss, H. G (English Universities)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
McKie, J H. (Galloway)
Thomas, J. P L. (Hereford)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G C.


Davidson, Viscountess
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wadsworth, G.


Drayson, G B.
Marlowe, A A. H
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Drewe, C.
Medlicott, Brigadier F
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Duthie, W. S.
Mellor, Sir J.



Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Mullan, Lt C H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fox, Sir G.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Commander Agnew and




Mr. Studholme.

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Younger.

Mr. Grimston: On a point of Order. It was arranged for the convenience of the Committee on the last Amendment that we should also discuss the Amendment to page line 37. I presume, Mr. Beaumont, that you will be putting that Amendment later on?

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 11, line 24, at the end, to insert:
and
(c) a person registered as a service voter shall not be entitled to vote by post on any ground other than his being so registered.
This Amendment is designed to prevent a possible confusion and to ensure that a person who is registered as a Service voter shall not be entitled to vote by post on any ground other than his being so registered. The point here is that a Service voter might be entitled to vote by post under two other headings, either because of the general nature of his service, or because he no longer resides at his qualifying address. As those various qualifications for voting by post may, under Clause 9, be of rather differing duration, it is obviously better that the Service voter should be entitled to vote by post only by virtue of one of those qualifications. This Amendment does not deprive the Service voter of any rights. He would possess the right to vote by post so long as he remained in the Service—that is to say, for quite an indefinite period so long as he was a Service voter. This Amendment merely ensures that the Service voter shall not have a dual registration, on more than one ground.

Mr. J. Foster: Are there not other people who might have two qualifications? Why is the Service voter singled out? For instance, it would he possible for a returning officer to have a wife as a candidate in another constituency. It is understandable that the Under-Secretary does not wish a Service voter to be in a position to apply under two qualifications, but I do not understand why he allows other people to have two qualifications under which they might apply. Why does not the Amendment state that nobody shall apply under two different qualifications? That would seem to me to be simpler than singling out the Service voter. It can be seen quite clearly that paragraphs (a) to (e) would not cover a person who was employed by a returning officer and whose wife was a candidate in another constituency. He is entitled to apply for voting by post on two grounds, that he is himself employed by the returning officer and that his wife is a candidate. I suggest that the Clause could be made a good deal simpler by saying that no persons shall be entitled to vote by post on more than one ground.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the remarks he has made. We will look at this to make sure whether any other persons are covered beside the Service voters in respect of whom we have made a similar provision. There is perhaps one distinction I could make. I am not sure it is necessarily the only one, but where the duration of the validity of the application is set out under Clause 9 the Service vote is not set out.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 11, line 25, to leave out "An absent voter," and to insert:
At an election for which a person's application to be treated as an absent voter is allowed, he.
This again is a drafting Amendment to avoid a small confusion which might have arisen about the definition of an absent voter. By an absent voter under Subsection (5), line 25 of page 11, is meant somebody who is being treated for the purposes of this Bill as an absent voter. It does not simply mean, as it might in ordinary conversation, someone who is not present, because if that were so he could not vote in person.

Mr. Hogg: I should like to ask the Under-Secretary one question. Some time ago he objected to altering the words
in pursuance of an application
under Subsection (4), because he argued that all that had to done in order to get oneself on the lists was to apply, whereas one of my hon. Friends was arguing that the correct form of words to insert would be the phrase to the effect that the application was allowed. The Under-Secretary at that time resisted the argument. I notice he is now inserting words of exactly the same kind as my hon. and learned Friend then suggested. I want to know why he has adopted one form of words before and now uses the same form as he resisted before.

Mr. Younger: The answer to that surely is because it is a different Clause dealing with a different matter.

Mr. Astor: There is surely a drafting error here. I have consulted my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), and he says the phrase reads as follows:
At an election for which a person's application to be treated as an absent voter is allowed, he.

Division No. 116.]
AYES.
[5.14 a.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bing, G. H. C.
Byers, Frank


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Binns, J.
Castle, Mrs. B. A


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blackburn, A. R.
Champion, A. J.


Alpass, J. H.
Boardman, H.
Chetwynd, G. R


Attewell, H. C.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Cobb, F. A.


Austin, H. Lewis
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Collindridge, F.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Collins, V. J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N W)


Barton, C.
Brown, George (Belper)
Crawley, A.


Bechervaise, A. E
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Crossman, R. H. S.


Berry, H.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Daggar, G.


Beswick, F.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Daines, P.

That seems to me to be Chinese. Does "he" full stop mean anything? Would the Under-Secretary give us an answer on that. It may be it should be "he" comma, or "he" semi-colon, but "he" full stop cannot be right. I ask him to look at that again and let the Committee know about it.

Mr. J. Foster: I am against this Amendment. The words as they are now are sufficiently quaint to fit into the rest of the quaint wording we have had in other parts of the Bill. It is in the best drafting tradition to have technical terms inserted in the Bill and not to have the technical terms explained every time they occur. An absent voter, to the trained lawyer, does not always mean a voter who is absent. It means a voter whose application to be treated as an absent voter has been allowed—a very different matter. I do not think it is right that we should condescend to make this Subsection intelligible to the meanest intellect. The drafting is very much on the same lines as that a well 100 feet deep shall be deemed to be a building 100 feet high. It is a very useful piece of drafting. It reminds me of the other one I am very fond of—half the penalty goes to the informer and half to the King—and the penalty Clause says, "Seven years' imprisonment." I think it was about a Clause like this that Lord Esher said, "If I understood the arguments of counsel I would not have agreed with them." I quote Box's Law Cases which says that a man with six children shall be deemed to be an unmarried man without children.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 11, line 37, to leave out "borough or."

Question put, "That the words 'borough or' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 53.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Kenyon, C.
Royle, C.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Segal, Dr. S.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Levy, B. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Sharp, Granville


Delargy, H. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Dodds, N. N.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Longden, F.
Simmons, C. J.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lyne, A. W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Snow, J. W.


Edelman, M.
Mack, J. D.
Sorensen, R. W.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Soskice, Sir Frank


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McLeavy, F.
Sparks, J. A.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Steele, T.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Fairhurst, F.
Mellish, R. J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Farthing, W. J.
Middleton, Mrs. L
Symonds, A. L.


Fernyhough, E.
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Field, Capt. W. J.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Foot, M. M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Forman, J. C.
Monslow, W
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Moody, A. S.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morley, R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Gibson, C. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Tiffany, S.


Gilzean, A
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Tolley, L.


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Moyle, A.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mulvey, A
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Nally, W.
Wadsworth, G.


Gunter, R. J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Guy, W. H.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Warbey, W. N.


Haire, John E (Wycombe)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Watkins, T. E.


Hale, Leslie
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Weitzman, D.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Orbach, M.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Hardman, D R.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Pargiter, G. A.
West, D. G.


Herbison, Miss M.
Parkin, B. T.
Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Holman, P.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Wilkes, L.


House, G.
Pearson, A.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hoy, J.
Peart, T. F.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Perrins, W.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Piratin, P.
Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Willis, E.


Janner, B.
Pritt, D. N.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Randall, H E
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Johnston, D. H.
Ranger, J.
Wyatt, W.


Jones, D. T (Hartlepool)
Rankin, J.
Yates, V. F.


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Reeves, J.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Zilliacus, K.


Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)



Kendall, W. D.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Hannan and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Astor, Hon. M.
Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Prescott, Stanley


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bossom, A. C.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Butcher, H. W.
Linstead, H. N.
Robinson, Roland


Challen, C.
Logan, D. G.
Spence, H. R.


Channon, H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clifton-Browne, Lt.-Col. G.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Touche, G. C.


Drayson, G. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Drewe, C.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Duthie, W. S.
Mellor, Sir J.



Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Mullan, Lt. C. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fox, Sir G.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Mr. Studholme and


Gage, C.
Odey, G. W.
Major Conant.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
It is now three hours since I moved a similar Motion, but on an earlier inquiry,

some six hours ago, the Home Secretary suggested that we might sit a little longer and see how we got on. Well, we sat a little longer, a matter of three hours, in which time we disposed of, I think, three


Clauses which were mainly debated by hon. Members opposite. That was at about 2.15 a.m. Since then, there have been certain signs of fatigue on the part of supporters of His Majesty's Government, who have taken very little part in our debates since that time. On the other hand, my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee have shown a zealous interest and considerable application to the detailed parts of the important Clauses which have been before the Committee.
We are about to embark upon an important Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet) dealing with the Metropolitan boroughs. I am sure that this is an Amendment upon which a good deal will have to be said from all quarters of the Committee. The Home Secretary suggested, at an earlier stage, that we might reasonably reach the end of Clause 30 during the present sitting. I wonder if that is still his objective, or whether, in fact, he hopes to reach the end of Clause 8—the Clause under discussion—in time to permit the House to resume at 11 o'clock. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an indication whether his target remains the same as it was when I inquired about it at 2.15 a.m.

Mr. Ede: I am sure that the Committee will not expect me to say that I am satisfied with the progress which has been made. It really is astonishing. When last the right hon. Gentleman spoke on a similar Motion, he complained that my hon. Friends had been taking too much part in the discussion. It is clear that he does not intend to be satisfied with anything that they do. Therefore, why should I be satisfied with anything that he proposes to do? I suggest that we might still continue the detailed study of the Bill. I regret that the ranks on the opposite side of the Committee have been rather thin in the last two or three Divisions. I do not see why I should be used to cover up their retreat.

Mr. Butcher: I hope that after reflection the Home Secretary will be able to agree that the Chairman should now report Progress. I rise as one who, during the whole of the Debate has been in fairly constant attendance. So far, I have endeavoured to

facilitate the work of the right hon. Gentleman by taking no part at all in the Debate. In fact, I almost felt that I belonged to His Majesty's Opposition in the last few hours because I was so silent, indeed that I was sitting on the Treasury Bench, because they have been as silent as I have been. The right hon. Gentleman ought to feel satisfied that many of us, under some provocation from him and the Patronage Secretary, have remained silent. Unless more progress is made, some of us who have been silent will feel inclined to voice the thoughts which have been running through our minds.

Mr. H. Strauss: When it was suggested by my right hon. Friend that the Government might still wish to attain Clause 30, there was considerable applause from the Government Benches. That is very interesting. It shows that the real object of continuing now is to kill the sitting later today and to save the Prime Minister the embarrassment of having to reply on the subject of Communist infiltration. It is most interesting when the real motives of the Government and their supporters are revealed in this way. I have no doubt that there are sincere hon. Members opposite to whom this parody of democratic procedure, involved in the attempt to attain Clause 30 of this Measure at this all-night sitting, is quite disgusting. But there are many more who think that it is a grand thing if they can thereby kill the sitting later today and avoid a Debate which they know will be highly injurious to their party interests. It is very good that those things should be revealed and made clear.—[Interruption.] I am sorry if I had missed a few of the observations which come from the lunatic fringe, but I will endeavour to deal with such of them as I hear. I still think that it would be in the interests of this Committee that the Motion should be accepted. I do not think it would delay in the least the progress that will be made with this Measure. I think the calculation that, by indulging in the sort of procedure that has been forced on the House, the Government will get their Measure more quickly is erroneous. I therefore strongly support the Motion.

5.30 a.m.

Mr. Marlowe: I support the Motion because I cannot feel that this early hour is the proper time for dealing with this


important Measure. There is one aspect of the Motion to which I want particularly to draw the attention of the Home Secretary. It will be recalled that the original arrangement was that there should be two days of this week given to this Bill. One day was lost on account of the Palestine Bill. Did the Home Secretary, when he set his target to reach Clause 30 by the end of this Sitting, have in mind that he would have had two Sittings by that time? Having lost one is he endeavouring to telescope two into one? If so, that is a very unfair burden to cast on the Committee because the day lost was not our fault. A large part of the time was taken up by a section of

Division No. 117.]
AYES.
[5.33 a.m.


Allen, A C. (Bosworth)
Gilzean, A.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Alpass, J. H.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Attewell, H. C.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Orbach, M.


Austin, H. Lewis
Gunter, R. J.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Guy, W. H.
Pargiter, G. A.


Bacon, Miss A.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Parkin, B. T.


Barton, C.
Hale, Leslie
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Berry, H.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Pearson, A.


Beswick, F
Hardman, D R
Pearl, T. F.


Bing, G. H. C
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Perrins, W.


Binns, J
Herbison, Miss M.
Piratin, P.


Blackburn, A. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Platts-Mills, J. F F.


Boardman, H.
Holman, P.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Bowles, F G. (Nuneaton)
House, G.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hoy, J.
Pritt, D N.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Randall, H. E.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ranger, J.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Rankin, J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Reeves, J.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead)


Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)
Janner, B.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Byers, Frank
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Johnston, D H.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, D. T (Hartlepool)
Royle, C.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Segal, Dr. S.


Cobb, F A
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Shackleton, E. A A


Collins, V. J.
Keenan, W
Sharp, Granville


Corbet, Mrs. F K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Kendall, W D.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Crawley, A.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Simmons, C. J.


Daggar, G.
Levy, B. W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Daines, P.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Snow, J. W


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Lindgren, G. S
Sorensen, R. W


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Soskice, Sir Frank


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Longden, F
Sparks, J. A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lyne, A. W.
Steele, T


Delargy, H. J.
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Dodds, N. N.
Mack, J. D.
Sylvester, G. O


Driberg, T E. N.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Symonds, A. L.


Dumpleton, C W.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edelman, M.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Evans, Albert (Islington W.)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mikardo, Ian
Thurtle, Ernest


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Tiffany, S.


Fairhurst, F.
Mitchison, G. R.
Tolley, L.


Farthing, W. J.
Monslow, W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Fernyhough, E.
Moody, A. S.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Field, Capt. W. J.
Morley, R.
Wadsworth, G.


Foot, M. M
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Forman, J. C.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Warbey, W. N.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Moyle, A.
Watkins, T E.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mulvey, A.
Weitzman, D.


Gibson, C. W.
Nally, W.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

his own party. If in fact he had that target originally and hoped to do in two days what we are now trying to do in one, that is an unfair burden and he should reconsider it and bring his target lower.

Mr. Hogg: Mr. Hogg rose——

Mr. Whiteley: Mr. Whiteley rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 188; Noes, 53.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Yates, V. F.


West, D. G.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Whealley, John (Edinburgh, E.)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)
Zilliacus, K.


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W
Williams, W. R. (Heston)



Wilkes, L.
Willis, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilkins, W. A.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Mr. Collindridge and


Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Mr. Richard Adams.


Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Wyatt, W.





NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Amory, D. Heathcoal
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Astor, Hon. M.
Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Prescott, Stanley


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bossom, A. C.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Keeling, E. H.
Robinson, Roland


Butcher, H. W
Linstead, H. N.
Spence, H. R.


Challen, C.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Channon, H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Clifton-Blowne, Lt.-Col. G.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Studholme, H. G.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Touche, G. C.


Drayson, G. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Drewe, C.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Duthie, W. S.
Mellor, Sir J.



Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Mullan, Lt. C. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fox, Sir G.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Major Conaot and Major Ramsay


Gage, C
Odey, G. W.

Question put accordingly, Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit
again."

Division No. 118.]
AYES.
[5.40 a.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Astor, Hon. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Pickthorn, K.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Grimston, R. V.
Prescott, Stanley


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bossom, A. C.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Roberts, Peter (Ecclesall)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, Roland


Butcher, H. W
Keeling, E. H.
Spence, H. R.


Byers, Frank
Linstead, H. N.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Challen, C.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Strauss, H. G (English Universities)


Channon, H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Studholme, H. G.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U (Ludlow)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G. C.


Cuthbert, W N.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wadsworth, G.


Drayson, G. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Drewe, C.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Duthie, W. S.
Mellor, Sir J.



Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Mullan, Lt. C. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fox, Sir G.
Noble, Comdr A. H P.
Major Conant and


Gage, C.
Odey, G. W.
Major Ramsay.




NOES.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bruce, Major D. W. T.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Alpass, J. H.
Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)
Edelman, M.


Attewell, H. C.
Castle, Mrs. B A
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)


Austin, H. Lewis
Champion, A J.
Evans, A. (Islington, W.)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Evans, John (Ogmore)


Bacon, Miss A.
Cobb, F. A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)


Barton, C.
Collins, V. J.
Fairhurst, F.


Bechervaise, A. E
Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N. W.)
Farthing, W. J.


Berry, H.
Crawley, A.
Fernyhough, E.


Beswick, F.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Field, Captain W. J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Daggar, G.
Foot, M. M.


Binns, J.
Daines, P.
Forman, J. C.


Blackburn, A. R.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Boardman, H.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Gibson, C. W.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gilzean, A.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Delargy, H. J.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Dodds, N. N.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Brown, George (Belper)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Gunter, R. J.


Brown, T J (Ince)
Dumpleton, C. W
Guy. W. H

That the Committee divided: Ayes, 56; Noes, 184.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Monslow, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Hale, Leslie
Moody, A. S.
Steele, T.


Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.
Morley, R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hardman, D. R.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Symonds, A. L.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Moyle, A.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Harbison, Miss M.
Mulvey, A.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Hewitson, Captain M.
Nally, W.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Holman, P.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


House, G.
Nicholls, H R (Stratford)
Thurtle, Ernest


Hoy, J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Tiffany, S.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Orbach, M.
Tolley, L.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Vernon, Major W. F.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Parkin, B. T.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Paton, Mrs F. (Rushcliffe)
Warbey, W. N.


Janner, B.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Watkins, T. E.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Pearson, A.
Weitzman, D.


Johnston, D. H.
Peart, Thomas F.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Perrins, W.
Wells, W. T (Walsall)


Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Piratin, P.
West, D. G.


Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Keenan, W.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Wigg, George


Kendall, W. D.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Wilkes, L.


Kenyon, C.
Pritt, D. N.
Wilkins, W A.


Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Randall, H. E.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Levy, B. W.
Ranger, J
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Rankin, J.
Williams, D J. (Neath)


Lindgren, G. S.
Reeves, J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Longden, F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Lyne, A. W.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Willis, E.


McGhee, H. G
Royle, C.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Mack, J. D.
Segal, Dr. S.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wyatt, W.


McLeavy, F.
Sharp, Granville
Yates, V. F.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Zilliacus, K.


Mellish, R. J.
Simmons, C. J.



Middleton, Mrs. L.
Smith, C. (Colehester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mikardo, Ian
Snow, J. W.
Mr. Collindridge and


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Sorensen, R W.
Mr. Richard Adams.


Mitchison, G. R.
Soskice, Sir Frank

Mrs. Corbet: I beg to move, in page II, to leave out lines 39 to 41.
I think that with a few words I may be able to commend this attempt to secure for London exactly the same conditions as those which exist in the rest of the country. I feel that if people are obliged to have regard to two contiguous boroughs it will be difficult for them to know their rights. We have in London Metropolitan boroughs varying in size but, nevertheless, units well known to the people, because it is through those units that they pay their rates. For instance, they know well enough when they leave the borough of Camberwell and go into the borough of Lambeth, because they know they pay their rates to the other authority. If my right hon. Friend could accept this Amendment it would effect a great improvement to this Clause.

Mr. Butcher: We are indebted to the hon. Lady for having moved this Amendment. Had I noticed it earlier I should have been happy to have added my name to it. I am sure the Home Secretary, as the Minister in charge of the Metropolitan police, will appreciate that the difficulties

in London transport are very great, and the distances are also large. As far as I understand the Amendment, its purpose is to treat the Metropolitan boroughs as separate areas.
One only has to consider this matter geographically to realise how very right the hon. Lady is to bring this matter before the Committee. Take, for example, somebody living in the Metropolitan borough of Wandsworth which goes almost down to Tooting Junction and Amen Corner. A contiguous borough to that is the borough of Hammersmith, the two boroughs joining somewhere near Putney Bridge. The borough of Hammersmith stretches out to Shepherd's Bush. On the other hand, if the absent voter were to move from Wandsworth to the point of Amen Corner, which is about a rid, tram ride, or along to Mitcham Common, of course he would be entitled to be registered as an absent voter. Yet, because the two Metropolitan boroughs are contiguo5s, the voters lose their opportunity of being so registered, and have to move from the extreme end of Wandsworth over the River Thames to the far side of the borough of Hammer-


smith. I am sure that is not what the Home Secretary would wish. This Amendment will satisfy the whole of the Committee, and if the right hon. Gentleman accepts it he will be bestowing considerable benefits on the electors of London.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend has moved this Amendment with commendable brevity, and we have had the advantage of having it supported from the other side of the Committee by an hon. Member who had previously reminded us that he had not spent very much time in speaking to us during the course of this Sitting. I am sure the Committee feel that such good behaviour should be rewarded, and I have much pleasure in accepting the Amendment.

Mr. J. Foster: I would like to ask a question. One reason for deleting these paragraphs might be that the word "contiguous" is ambiguous. Is the right hon. Gentleman of opinion that the boroughs which are separated by the Thames are "contiguous" or not? I believe the boroughs do not extend to the middle of the river, and, therefore, they would not be touching. Would that not be the reason for leaving this paragraph out?

Mr. Ede: The metropolitan boroughs extend to the middle of the bed of the river Thames, with the exception of Woolwich.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: On a point of Order. As the right hon. Gentleman has already stated that he is leaving out these three lines, is he entitled to give an explanation?

Mr. Ede: As I was saying, except the borough of Woolwich, part of which is to be found on the north bank of the Thames. I am advised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that it would not matter if the boroughs did not extend to the middle of the Thames, for if they are separated only by the river, they would still be contiguous.

Mr. Butcher: Hon. Gentlemen opposite, in view of the charming words which the Home Secretary addressed to me, would think I was guilty of grave discourtesy, if I did not take the opportunity to thank him for his kindness. Tile fact that the

right hon, Gentleman has accepted my first intervention in the Debate encourages me to make more frequent interventions. I am hoping that he, the hon. Lady for North-west Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet) and I, if we continue to move together, will accomplish something more. If we continue to sit here for a few more hours this trio will be able to co-operate most happily.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like, too, to congratulate the hon. Lady for North-West Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet) on this Amendment, and also the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on an apparent change of attitude from that adopted so far. I hope he will regard this as a precedent to be followed in the future. Before we pass from this Amendment, bearing in mind the importance of this Measure, the Committee should have some idea why these words were originally included in this Bill. Why have we to spend time in Committee taking out what the Government put in? Obviously, it would be wrong to treat contiguous metropolitan boroughs differently from boroughs or urban districts in other parts of the country. The right hon. Gentleman has been allowed to get away with it far too easily, and he should tell us how this curious discrimination against the metropolitan boroughs got into the Bill, and why it is that he has only now discovered the error made.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.0 a.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: Before we part from this Clause, there is one question I should like to put to the Home Secretary. It arises out of the last Subsection with which we have been dealing. It will be seen that the Subsection defines the areas in question by reference to addresses, but that reference is not satisfactory in the context. There is a block of flats probably known to most hon. Members of this Committee, which stands at the corner of the Finchley Road and Hendon Way. The block of flats was built on the boundary of the constituency and accordingly the boundary passes right through the middle of the block. I am not certain whether the boundary actually falls on the corner walls or whether it passes through the buildings,


because the address is the same in each case. But it may well be that a person residing in Flat I moves to Flat 4, and in doing so passes out of the borough of Hendon into the metropolitan borough of Hampstead. Thus they have brought themselves within the meaning of this Subsection. But it seems to me entirely unfair that they should be accorded the advantage of the Clause by the technical fact that they have changed their addresses.
There are cases where the address might be altogether the wrong test. Hon. Members will be well aware that there are places in this country where the address is given, as the local postal town, which might be Io or 20 miles away from the actual place of residence. The address would be the address of the postal town, and therefore there would be cases in which removals up to 20 miles would have to be disregarded. I have put the extreme cases—removal from one room to another would be a change of address; in the other case, a removal of many miles might constitute no change at all. I think that these words need examination. I hope we shall get an assurance from the Government that they will look at the wording to see whether some amendment might not be necessary to give effect to their genuine intention.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: There is one point on which I think we ought to have a little explanation from the right hon. Gentleman. It may be covered, but I am not quite sure that it is. This is a very complicated Clause and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to put my doubts at rest. Although the Bill makes provision for people to vote by post and by proxy if they come within the categories set out in Clause 8 (I), is this particular case covered by those categories? Suppose someone after an operation is sent away to some other part of the country on doctor's orders to convalesce, would the individual suffering or recovering from illness, be entitled to vote, either by proxy or post. It would not appear from the state of their health that they had been unable to go in person to a polling station and vote unaided. On the other hand, they might be under doctor's orders. This affects every section of the community, as people nowadays are sent say, from the Midlands to Bognor to recuperate. [Laughter.] It is a serious point,

although there appears to be some laughter on the benches below the Gangway opposite. It is a point requiring careful consideration. I do not know whether the hon. Member opposite is having a talk of his own or not.

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am trying to put a point of some importance which I think the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour—[Interruption]—the interruptions below the Gangway do not facilitate my task and I am afraid make it more difficult for me to put the point as clearly and as concisely as I would wish.
Would those people to whom I refer come within category (c)—persons in convalescent homes? I should doubt myself whether they would. They would not come obviously within category (b) because it could not be said in many cases, that they would have to make a journey by air or sea. They might have to make a journey, however, of many miles by rail to get to their polling station and that might be very injurious to their health and retard their recovery. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does intend to make provision for such cases. I am sure that he would not intend that those persons in convalescent homes should be deprived of the right to vote by post. But I am not sure that will not be the result, and perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend might give us his opinion on this. He might give us an assurance either that the case is covered or, if it is not covered, that he will make provision for it, at a later stage of the bill.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Before we leave this Clause may I say that whatever the value of the matter which it contains, I think everyone will agree that in its construction it is a deplorably bad Clause. It was bad enough before the addition was made in Subsection (8). With the addition of that new piece, the Clause becomes positively ridiculous. The point I wish to make about the construction of this Clause is that we have here division and sub-division on a perfectly fantastic scale. When I was trained as a staff officer I was told by my instructor —a very distinguished general—that if you had more than one sub-division to a clause in any order you were writing, it was a rank bad order. [Interruption.] Many Members on the other side


of the Committee know nothing about military matters but they might learn something if they would listen for a moment. I would like to point out that in this Clause we have eight sections, fourteen subsections and five sub-subsections. If that is not a clear example of bad construction, and does not lead inevitably to confusion, then I do not know what bad construction is. If the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack) would like some instruction on these matters, I should be glad to give them. I fancy his knowledge of military matters is rather less than that of most Members. Why should we have a Clause like this, which will affect people many of whom are without expert legal knowledge and can lead to nothing but confusion? I ask the Home Secretary and the Lord Advocate to see if it cannot be simplified before we come to the Report stage. Someone has to operate this and in the matter of the proxy and absent voter, it is I think testing them far too high. A little clarity and simplicity in these matters would help, because, whatever the merits or demerits of the matter contained in the Clause, the way in which it is set out will lead to an enormous reduction of any value it might otherwise have.

Mr. H. Strauss: May I put one question to the Home Secretary? I wonder whether he is quite satisfied that, as a result of the Amendment which, with the consent of the whole Committee, he has accepted, some consequential Amendment may not be necessary. As a result of deleting the Subsection (7, b) all allusion to the City of London has gone. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that the area of the City of London is sufficiently provided for without any further amendment of the Clause.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: If interventions by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and Kinross (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) have been rare in this Debate, it is because there has been no evidence of considerable political bias against Scotland. But I am in doubt about that here. In Subsection (7, c) we find a definition of an absent voter. The Clause is concerned with showing to the Committee, and to the country, how absent a voter has to be, before he is

recognised as an absent voter. We find that the definition of an absent voter in England varies considerably from that of an absent voter in Scotland. I should like to be assured that an absent voter has not to be more absent in Scotland than is the case in England if he is to qualify. We find that in England he can be in the same village, and yet technically can be an absent voter, whereas in Scotland he has to be right out of the electoral division. I do not know whether the electoral division has been defined as the Parliamentary, or the local government, electoral division. Both these types of electoral division may extend over a very wide area in Scotland. Perhaps the Home Secretary will be able to enlighten me on this point.

Mr. P. Roberts: I rise full of optimism, because we had a long discussion earlier about whether the borough was too large an area for persons to travel over to record their votes. We have had the same principle discussed with regard to the Metropolitan boroughs. The argument there was again that the areas and the distances became so wide and complicated that voting in person should be waived. Now the Home Secretary has accepted that with regard to the Metropolitan boroughs. I want to refer to the map which shows the Metropolitan boroughs. The scale is shown at the foot of the map, and I have managed to work out the distances and to compare those in the boroughs of London with the distances which I mentioned in regard to Sheffield. Although I do not want to repeat myself. I do wish to refer to Leeds at a later stage. The argument I have to put to the Home Secretary is that if he is going to accept the pleas with regard to distances and the difficulty of transport in London, then he should concede the same arguments in other great cities, particularly in the Midlands and the North of England.
6.15 a.m.
I wish to take as my first example the Metropolitan borough of Wandsworth and the question of travelling from there to the Metropolitan borough of Lambeth. The Home Secretary was quite right when he agreed that this was a very long way if one were to travel from Putney all the way round to Vauxhall.—[AN. HON. MEMBER: "Which way?"]—I did not intend to go into detail but, as I have been asked, I will do so. He would go


through Dunishill, and Upper Tooting, from there to Tooting Bec and Streatham, then to Norwood and Lambeth and so up to the Vauxhall Bridge. That is a distance of over ten miles.

Mr. Butcher: Surely the man would be travelling the wrong way. Would he not take a District Line train from Putney Bridge Station to Westminster and then cross over the Bridge on a tram?

Mr. Roberts: If he did not follow the route I have mentioned, he would not go from one contiguous borough to another contiguous borough, because he would go through Battersea, Chelsea and Westminster, and they are not relevant to this argument.
I now wish to refer to the great City of Leeds. The Home Secretary says that whereas it was wrong to compel a person to travel from Putney to Vauxhall, as it was too far for an injured or blind person, it is right that someone should go from Upper Moor Side all the way into the centre of Leeds and out on the other side towards Red Hut. That is a distance of something less than ten miles. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his previous decision. He said that it was considered convenient for the incapacitated and blind to travel these distances in the towns and cities of the North, but that that was not to be expected in regard to the. Metropolitan boroughs. If the Home Secretary would accept the principle of my argument I would sit down at once, but apparently he is not satisfied that there is a valid argument. I do not know whether he is prepared to intervene to say that he will consider the matter again between now and the Report stage.
There was a suggestion earlier that the word "ward" should be substituted for the words "boroughs" and "urban districts." That was a reasonable suggestion. I consider the only reason why it was not accepted was that it was put at too great a length. The right hon. Gentleman appears more inclined to accept principles when they are put with brevity than when they are explained at length. I hope that is not the case. It would be a great negation of the principles of justice if the way in which an Amendment was proposed, was a criterion of whether or not it should be accepted. I wish to bring his attention to that aspect. If he is not satisfied with the argument I

would, with great pleasure, take other instances and show how exactly the same thing would apply in London and Northern cities.

Mr. Ede: I will try to deal with the various questions which have been put to me. The hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) asked what would happen if a person moved from Flat z in his constituency into Flat 4 which, although in the same block of buildings, would be in the adjoining Metropolitan borough of Hampstead. There is no doubt in that case a person would qualify for his address as Flat whatever the name of the mansions were. I cannot think there is any difficulty about that. The hon. and learned Member for the Combined Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) asked whether, as a result of accepting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Mrs. Corbet), I should not have to put down an Amendment on the Report stage to deal with the position of the City. That is so, and it will be necessary as the City does not rank as a borough and has to be specially described in any Measure of this kind.
The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) asked about the case of a person staying in a convalescent home owing to ill-health. I am advised that if a doctor could certify that it would be injurious to the health of such a person to go home for the purpose of recording the vote, that would be sufficient to ensure he would be allowed to vote by post. The hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. Roberts) asked about certain circumstances arising out of the acceptance of the Amendment. I accepted the Amendment because I saw no reason why London should be treated differently from other parts of the country. A Metropolitan borough, it seems to me, ought to be treated in the same way as any other borough. It seems absurd to insist that in London a movement from one contiguous borough would not qualify, whereas in any other part of the country to have crossed the boundary between two boroughs would enable someone to get the benefit of the Clause.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Would the Home Secretary answer the question about Scotland?

Mr. Ede: No. The next thing would be that someone would complain I am meddling in Scottish matters. I do not intend to reply to Scottish points. Far be it for me to deal with the intricacies of Scottish local government. I hope that, as regards questions addressed to me as Secretary of State for affairs South of the Tweed, it will be thought I have given reasonable answers.

Mr. Pickthorn: I wonder if I might refer to a remark made by the Under-Secretary a good many hours ago and ask him a general question. He then said, and I think I am quoting him correctly, that it will not be necessary for an individual to register a long time in advance. I hope and believe he is right. The question, I want to ask is this. The general upshot of this Clause is not easy to follow and it has not been made easier by all that has happened in the night because one or two Amendments have been accepted and the two sides of the Committee disagree about the meaning of them. Would it not save our time on Clause 9 and one or two of the later Clauses if we could be told, quite shortly, the general upshot of this Clause One obvious method which occurs to me is in what respect this will be different from what we are accustomed to; what it was at the last General Election, and whether we can be given some forecast as to the general regulations which may be expected, to whom it need apply, and by what date. This, I presume, will all be answered by regulations. It may be that the Clause which we are now engaged in passing, or the contemplated regulations under the Clause, contemplate some material change in these matters. If so, it seems that our discussions on Clause 9 and later Clauses will be rather meaningless unless we are informed on the points I have put now. I hope I have made myself clear.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): If I may answer the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison), I would point out that it is difficult to make a distinction between burghs and counties so far as Parliamentary and municipal divisions are concerned, but as the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith)—I think it was he—suggested earlier in the Debate, it does make a difference in great con-

stituencies like Ross-shire where a person may be a long distance from a residence. I shall look into this matter to see if anything can be done to make this more uniform or more just.

Mr. Spence: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I hope that no one in the Committee feels that this is time-wasting, because it is a most important Clause; it is the most important in the whole Bill. This Clause arranges the place and manner of voting for the electorate, and there can be nothing much more important than that, and in raising these points we are trying to make the Bill as good as we can. There is a point on which I should like some information. It is where paragraph (I) lays down, at the very beginning, the terms under which the ordinary elector votes. It says:
All persons voting as electors at a Parliamentary election shall do so in person at the polling station allotted to them under the Ballot Act, 1872.
If we turn one page we find that we have been arranging where the polling stations shall be in this new Bill, which is to become the Act of 1948. How do the electors know under an Act of 1872 where polling stations are to be which are arranged under an Act of 1948? If the Ballot Act appears to give direction as to where they are to vote surely something should be put in the Clause to make that clear. Here is a fundamental right of the electorate to go to the poll and cast their votes, and it is an important matter and should be made quite clear.

6.30 a.m.

Mr. Whiteley: Mr. Whiteley rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Major Beamish: On a point of Order. I had wanted to have an opportunity on this Clause of raising an extremely important matter referring to the Ballot Act of 1872.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Pickthorn: I hope this is a point of Order, and I would not endeavour to make a false one. Is it out of Order to ask you, Mr. Beaumont, who have not been very long in the Chair, whether it is present to your mind that there has been no general explanation of the general meaning of this Clause at all? There have been several substantial questions,


a general explanation has been asked for in a polite and reasonable manner, and it is a little surprising, there having been no general explanation, that the Question should now be put.

The Deputy-Chairman: What the hon. Member is saying is not a point of Order. It may be that I have just returned to the Chair, but I have been an appreciable time in the Chair when this Clause and Amendments to it have been fully discussed. I hope I have answered the questions courteously if, may be, not satisfactorily.

Division No. 119.]
AYES.
[6.33 a.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Guy, W. H.
Pritt, D. N.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hale, Leslie
Randall, H. E.


Alpass, J. H.
Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.
Ranger, J.


Attewell, H. C.
Hardman, D. R.
Reeves, J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Herbison, Miss M.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Bacon, Miss A.
Hewitson, Captain M.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Barton, C.
Holman, P.
Royle, C.


Bechervaise, A. E.
House, G.
Segal, Dr. S.


Berry, H.
Hoy, J.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Beswick, F.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Sharp, Granville


Bing, G. H. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Binns, J.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Blackburn, A. R.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Simmons, C. J.


Boardman, H.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Snow, J. W.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Janner, B.
Sorensen, R. W.


Braddoek, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Soskice, Sir Frank


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Johnston, D. H.
Sparks, J. A.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Steele, T.


Brown, George (Belper)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Brown, T J. (Ince)
Keenan, W.
Sylvester, G. O.


Bruce, Major D. W. T.
Kenyon, C.
Symonds, A. L.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Byers, Frank
Levy, B. W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Champion, A. J.
Lewis, A W. J. (Upton)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lindgren, G. S.
Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)


Collins, V. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Longden, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Crawley, A.
Lyne, A. W.
Tiffany, S.


Crossman, R. H. S.
McGhee, H. G.
Tolley, L.


Daggar, G.
Mack, J. D.
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Daines, P.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Vernon, Major W. F.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McLeavy, F.
Wadsworth, G.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.
Walkins, T. E.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Mellish, R. J.
Weitzman, D.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Middleton, Mrs. L
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Delargy, H. J.
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Dodds, N. N.
Monslow, W.
West, D. G


Driberg, T. E. N.
Morley, R.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wilkes, L.


Edelman, M.
Moyle, A.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Evans, A. (Islington, W.)
Nally, W.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Williams, D J. (Neath)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Fairhurst, F.
Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Farthing, W. J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Fernyhough, E.
Orbach, M.
Willis, E.


Field, Captain W. J.
Palmer, A. M. F
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Foot, M. M.
Pargiter, G. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Forman, J. C.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Wyatt, W.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Yates, V. F.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Pearson, A.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Gibson, C. W.
Peart, Thomas F.
Zilliacus, K.


Gilzean, A.
Perrins, W.



Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Piratin, P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Mr. Hannan and


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Poole, Ceoil (Lichfield)
Mr. Collindridge.


Gunter, R. J.
Porter, G. (Leeds)

Mr. Pickthorn: You were in the Chair, Sir, when the Amendments were discussed, but not for the time when the Clause was under discussion.

Mr. Marlowe: Mr. Marlowe rose——

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot continuously have points of Order. There have been two already.

Question put. "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 52.

NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Galbraith, Cmdr T. D
Odey, G. W.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Astor, Hon. M.
Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Pickthorn, K.


Bossom, A. C.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Prescott, Stanley


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Butcher, H. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Roberts, Peter (Ecclesall)


Challen, C.
Kendall, W. D.
Robinson, Roland


Channon, H.
Linstead, H. N.
Spence, H. R.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Touche, G. C.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Drayson, G. B.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Drewe, C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.



Duthie, W. S.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Mellor, Sir J
Mr. Studholme and


Fox, Sir G.
Mullan, Lt. C. H.
Major Ramsay.


Gage, C.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put accordingly, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Determination of right to be treated as absent voter.)

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move in page 12, to leave out lines 16 to 18.
This Amendment raises a point of no little interest. Claw 9 (2) provides that the application to be treated as an absent voter shall be for a particular election only, except in certain cases. The first case is the general nature of the applicant's occupation, service or employment. As far as I can see, there is no objection to the application on that ground being for more than a particular election. The second category is the applicant's physical incapacity. If his physical incapacity is likely to be of an enduring nature, and only if it is likely to be of an enduring nature, it would appear right that an application might be made in respect of more than one election. The same argument can properly be applied to the third category, where the necessity of a journey by sea or air to go from the applicant's qualifying address to his polling station is established.
But what is the ground for saying that where a man has ceased to reside at his qualifying address, his application can be in respect of more than one election? If he has ceased to reside at his qualifying address and has taken up residence some where else, surely the time will come when he will get upon the register in the normal way in the place at which he is at that time living. Therefore, I can see no argument in favour of saying that in that category of cases, the application—

[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I can hardly hear what I am saying because of the whispers of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). I do not know if you were able to hear what I said, Mr. Wells, but in case you did not——

Mr. Dalton: Speak up.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was trying to point out to the Committee, though I fear I had not got the right hon. Gentleman's attention, a very important question in regard to the fourth category under Section 9 (2). It seems to me very hard to justify giving a man the right to apply to be placed upon the absent voters' list for more than one election solely upon the ground that he has ceased to reside at his qualifying address in respect of one particular election. In spite of the slight murmurs that have come from below the Gangway opposite, I hope my remarks have been audible to the right hon. Gentleman, and that in spite of those murmurs what I have said is clear. Having put this argument so shortly at this hour of the morning, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say, as he has said once to a Member on his own side, "This is a sound Amendment which I can accept, because it is based on logic. I admit it is wrong not to have it contained in the Bill."

6.45 a.m.

Mr. Ede: I am quite sure the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish to deprive anyone of a vote by removing him or her from the effective register before getting on to another. It may well be in the course of the register more than one election will take place, and it would be


wrong if a person were deprived of his vote in the second election, and a fresh application have to be made before he was placed on the electoral roll for the constituency to which he had moved. That might be the effect of adopting this Amendment. In the normal course of events when the canvass is taken of the address at which the absent voter formerly resided his name will not be given to the canvasser as being a resident, and in that way his name will disappear from the register. By that time and on that qualifying date he should be resident in another constituency, and he will have to obtain a vote.
The whole idea of this Bill is that one should endeavour to keep a person as an elector in some constituency or another, and that in normal circumstances he will not disappear from one register until he has qualified to appear on another. That qualification depends on residing at a certain place on a certain date. It is not dissimilar to a point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman earlier in the Debate, when the same effect might have been caused by removing a person from having an effective vote before he acquired another vote in another constituency. The retention of the words in the Bill is justified, and I hope this Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman has given convincing reasons why the name should stay beyond a single election, because there might be two elections within six months. I can see great difficulty in the alternative of an indefinite period under Subsection (3). You get on the new register as an absent voter for an indefinite period. Nobody checks up what has happened to you and you can go on voting by being an absent voter for an indefinite period long after you want to. I do not see what is to stop it. It does not require any deliberate malice. People do these things without thinking very much. I would like to be convinced by the right hon. Gentleman that there is need to keep names on for an indefinite period. I see the need to keep them on to the end of the current period where, as the right hon. Gentleman truly says, there is no need in the majority of cases to keep it there any longer. But why keep it on for a long period with all the trouble it seems to imply?

Mr. Butcher: I appreciate the point of view of the Home Secretary and I do not find myself in disagreement with him. The requisites for being treated as an absent voter are, first, application and, secondly, furnishing of address to which a ballot paper is to be sent under Clause 8 (4). I would have thought, in view of the comparatively brief period of qualification, it would not be necessary to have an applicant put on the register for an indeterminate period. I would have thought, if more than one election occurred during the period necessary to elapse to establish qualification elsewhere, it would not be a particular hardship to the applicants to cause them to register for each election as it occurred.

Mr. Ede: I hoped I had made the point clear. A person will get on the register because at the time of canvass he is residing at a certain address. There are, of course, provisions whereby, if he is temporarily absent, he will be enrolled. He cannot become an absent voter unless he has qualified in that way. Therefore, when the next time comes round and the canvass is made—there will be one every six months—if he no longer resides at what was a qualifying address on the current register, he will not be placed on the register for the next register. Therefore, he will disappear from the register and he will have no ground to claim to be included in that constituency as an absent voter.
I am most anxious to ensure that where people are on the register they shall have every facility for recording their votes. It seems to me that the number of cases in which in the course of that six months a man will want to register for more than one election will be very few. But let us suppose there is a by-election almost immediately before or after a General Election. It may very well be desirable that a person should be able to be registered as an absent voter during the whole of the period, though the actual absence from the constituency may be a little longer than the six months. He will be placed on the register as a result of a canvass that takes place some period before the register is actually published. In fact, during the period between the date of the canvass being taken and the register being published, he may be away for a whole six months. I do not think this is a very important point


but I should have thought that it was rather better to give a person the facility for voting rather than to make it awkward for him to register his vote if in fact there should be two elections during the period of one register.

Mr. Astor: On a point of Order, Sir. Looking around this Chamber I see a number of Members, including the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) apparently asleep. Is it in Order.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I want to say a further word about this Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has very courteously given us an explanation. No one has suggested that the desire on the part of the Committee was to leave the absent voter without the right of exercising his vote. The effect of this Amendment will not be to prevent him, as I understand it, from applying for a vote as an absent voter at a particular election. Leaving these words out, would enable that man to apply in the normal way and there would be no greater handicap on his doing that than there was in the first place. But the danger is, we feel, that you might get with regard to the Service voters a register which is unduly loaded and here it seems to me, that more attention has been paid to putting people on the absent voters list than to the deletion of those who have in the true sense ceased to be absent voters. I think the point is worthy of more consideration by the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will look at it between now and the Report stage. I really think that there is no issue dividing the Committee—it is merely a matter of machinery, except that we see some dangers which might ensue. If my right hon. Friend will indicate that he will look at this matter again, I should be very ready at this hour to withdraw the Amendment by leave of the Committee.

Mr. Ede: I do not want to prevent my hon. and learned Friend from withdrawing his Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I said "If."

Mr. Ede: I will consider this point. Nothing that I have heard has moved me from the line that I have taken up, but no doubt I can have a conversation with the hon. and learned Gentleman in the

course of which we might be able to discover what prevents us from seeing eye to eye on this matter.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Grimston: There is a point in connection with this Clause which I think should be raised. As it stands, it will be possible for an absent man or woman who is often away from home, or more often than not away from home—for example, an opera singer or a ballet dancer—to apply to be an absent voter, but it is possible that that privilege will not be extended to the spouse if the spouse is in the habit of accompanying either the husband or the wife. There may be many cases in which the wife might accompany her husband for business reasons. She might act as his secretary. She might be part of the business. Equally, the husband of a ballet dancer or opera singer might wish to accompany his wife. Here is a point which might quite reasonably be looked into to see if the privilege cannot be extended. This was a point I was going to raise on the Amendments which were not selected by the Chair, and I raise it now in the hope that the right. hon. Gentleman will say that he will have a look at it.

7.0 a.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: There is one other point upon which I should like to have information. It is highly desirable that there should be on record, and available to the public, as much information about this complicated question as possible. At first sight, this part of this Clause looks very simple, because Subsection (1) appears not to be connected with any troublesome regulations about time limits, or forms, or anything of that kind. It looks absolutely straightforward, stating that application to be considered an absent voter for Parliamentary elections shall be made to a registration officer—there is nothing about forms there—and stating also that the application shall be allowed by him if he is satisfied about the applicant. There is no question of a time limit, or restrictions of any kind. That would seem, to most people who have some acquaintance with statutes,


not to connect up with regulations, because it is a common thing in the drafting of statutes that where a particular Section is to be governed by regulations there is a Subsection in it which refers to regulations; but that is not done here, and it will easily mislead the unwary unless care is taken to inform those concerned.
In Clause 62 one finds power to make regulations about this matter. It is a curious form of drafting. I do not know whence it came, and I do not think it is desirable, though it may have a respectable ancestry. I think the Home Secretary should consider whether he ought not to give notice within Clause 1 that this does attract regulations. It is clear in line 3o, page 57, that regulations will attach to the apparent simplicity of this Clause. It is only if one has a suspicious mind that one will discover this. I suggest that the Home Secretary should give a little more notice of that on the face of the Bill than there is at present.
I hope that he will also tell us approximately how long application has to be made before a person will be able to get on to the absent voters' roll. This is very important, of course, in the case of temporary owners, and matter- of that kind. It may be important in other cases, but that is the typical case where there is considerable difficulty in knowing just what to do. I think it would be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us what will be the position in future under these contemplated regulations; and about how long before an actual election a person will have to send in a form so as to get on to the roll for an indefinite time. It is not long. It cannot be. On the other hand, it cannot be very short, because it is necessary to get names and addresses, and there must be time for the ballot papers to be posted. If the right hon. Gentleman could put on record the existing situation, it might help some people who may find difficulty in discovering what it is.

Mr. Ede: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, regulation-making power is to be found in Clause 62. I am told that it is not unusual in a Bill of this kind for there to be a general regulation-making Clause of that kind. I do not think that many people who are concerned with being registered as absent voters take the trouble to consult Acts of Parliament. In the main, they will go either to the

town clerk, the registration officer or to the agent of their own political party to ascertain the procedure to follow in order to register as an absent voter. The regulations are under consideration. We hope to make the qualifying period as short as is possible to enable the various stages between making the application and being placed on the list to be short and contracted. All have to be submitted to the House by positive procedure so that there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to consider them. I cannot at the moment say the exact periods that will be prescribed, but we shall endeavour to keep them as short as possible. I have no doubt that just before an election a considerable interest will be taken by persons who desire to qualify. We desire to make the procedure as simple, and the period as short, as possible.
The hon. Member for Westbury.(Mr. Grimston) asked about the question of the spouse of the ballet dancer and the lady who acts as her husband's secretary when he goes abroad on holiday. Clearly, they are not covered by this Clause as it stands. I undertake to examine the position to see how far it is possible to deal with the kind of persons to whom he alluded. If it is possible to do anything between now and Report stage, I will see that appropriate steps are taken.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Proxies.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 12, line 36, to leave out "appoint," and insert "have."
This and the following Amendment can be considered together. The point is that the proxy is technically appointed not by the elector but by the registrar.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he has separated the word "have" from the word "appointed"? Why could they not have been placed contiguously, to use a phrase the exact meaning of which we now know? Why should he split this sentence half way down the centre in this inelegant fashion?

Mr. Pritt: To "have appointed" a proxy is a use of the verb which we understand and which the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has in mind; but that is not what the Clause means. It means to have a person who has been appointed


as a proxy. The draftsman is right to say:
A person shall not be entitled to have…
to possess, as it were—
…more than one person at a time appointed as proxy to vote for him…

Mr. Younger: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. The explanation he has given is quite right. This is simply a matter of drafting. I do not think that there is any doubt at all about the sense.

Mr. Pickthorn: I did not mean to butt in but I think that explanation is not quite right. "Have" is not a passive "have." Surely what is meant is that "X" shall not be entitled to get someone appointed in that sense? I agree there is not a very practical difference between the-two but I cannot agree that the logical and grammatical explanation given from below the Gangway helps the Minister at all.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 37, after "time," insert "appointed."—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 13, line 1, to leave out "of whom," and to insert "unless."
The point we are raising here is the number of proxy votes that a person can exercise. The Clause now reads:
A person shall not be entitled to vote as proxy at the same election in any constituency on behalf of more than two electors of whom that person is neither the husband, wife, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, child or grandchild.
That means, as far as I can see, that a person can be proxy for any number of relatives plus two outside people as well. We think that is too many. It may often occur that members of a family, husband, son or sons, daughters, are away on service and that a large number of family proxy votes are being exercised. It is quite wrong that on top of that a proxy v6te for strangers should be exercised. The words we propose to insert by this and a subsequent Amendment would make the Clause read to cover the point I am trying to make, that is, that where a person is exercising a proxy vote for two or more members of his family, he cannot exercise one for a stranger as well. That is desirable and I hope the Home Secretary will accept it. If he has a better

way of meeting the point, we shall be happy to hear his proposal.

7.15 a.m.

Mr. Ede: When the proxy vote was first arranged, there was a great fear that we might get a professional class of proxy voter and that there might be someone appointed by one of the political parties to collect all the proxies in an area and to exercise them. That clearly would be very undesirable. It was therefore decided that, apart from relatives, a person should not be entitled to act as proxy for more than two persons. That is the arrangement we propose to continue. I cannot myself think that it is undesirable that within a family a person should be able to choose which of his or her relatives would be preferred to exercise the proxy vote; and if there should be a fairly large family, I do not think any harm is done. Nor should a person acting for his or her family be debarred from acting as proxy if not more than two other persons wish him to act in that capacity. There is, for example, the case of a fiancee of one of the children who might desire that one of the parents should act as proxy and I cannot see why, in such cases, that should not be allowed. The Clause is not open to any of the objections which it was said to be by the original proposals, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment because the procedure does not at present lend itself to any malpractices; on the other hand, a wide choice of persons who desire to appoint someone to act as proxy is allowed.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 13, line 2, to leave out "neither" and to insert "not."
This is a drafting Amendment to correct a small grammatical mistake. It does not change the sense in any way, but in this context "not" is more grammatical than "neither."

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I should like to ask the Home Secretary about Subsection (7). We were told by the Under-Secretary at the beginning of our discussion on this Clause that it was an error to say that a


person appointed a proxy, and so we put in words a little bit awkward, but which expressed, with reasonable accuracy, the fact that the proxy was appointed for someone. But, apparently, a person who made this discovery with regard to Subsection (1), failed to read on to Subsection (7), where we find that the registration officer shall keep a record of electors who have appointed proxies. That is to say, in the first Subsection, the doctrine is laid down that one has a proxy appointed for one, but in the other Subsection one appoints one's own. There seems to be unnecessary carelessness here. I do not want to animadvert too much on these matters, but if the Home Secretary's officers are given half a chance, they never make mistakes of this kind. It simply is not done.
The reason why it is done here is that the right hon. Gentleman is grossly overworking his staff. In any ordinary period this just could not happen. This is a small matter and no one had spotted it. It would do no one much harm, but if this happens in a small way it can easily happen in regard to an important matter because; whatever else his officers do, they do pay great attention to details in getting Acts of Parliament accurate. It is very proper that they should, but if the staff are driven so hard then anything may happen. I beg the right hon. Gentleman before it is too late to take a lesson from this and do not drive the staff of this House quite so hard as he is trying to do.

Mr. Ede: I will take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's admonitions to heart, and I am glad he has blamed me and not the staff. After all, I can defend myself if I feel like it. They unfortunately cannot, therefore I accept the blame. I ought to have spotted it, particularly when my attention had been called to the rewording of the first Subsection, but I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that while I listened with patience to him this is not the only time that a small slip has been made in drafting a Bill.

Mr. P. Roberts: I therefore take it that the plural "proxies" is not intended because under Clause 10 (1) a person shall not be entitled to have more than one proxy. I take it it is assumed that a person might be entitled to appoint more than one proxy? Therefore I can say, "I will appoint someone as proxy and also someone else, but only one of them

can exercise the right to vote for me." It seems to me as the Clause is now drafted even with the amending word in Subsection (1), it will be possible to appoint more than one proxy but only in point of fact to have one, otherwise there is no point in omitting the word "appoint." Under subsection (7) it must be possible for an elector who has appointed proxies, in the plural, to have them on the register to that effect. I would like the Home Secretary to make it quite clear that that is not what is intended by this Clause.

Mr. Pickthorn: Am I right in supposing after the explanation just given by the Home Secretary that Subsection (7) should read:
…shall keep a record of electors who have had proxies appointed.
I take it that is how it should read on the amendment to the word "have" in Subsection (1)?

Mr. Ede: I am not going to bind myself to the exact form in which Subsection (7) will be re-worded, but the hon. Member has correctly expressed the idea which should be enshrined in that Subsection. With regard to the point of the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts), each elector is entitled to only one proxy, but of course unless there is only one elector so registered in the list there will be electors and proxies. But the number of electors and the number of proxies will be the same even though some of the proxies have been duplicates.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Timetable and procedure.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 15, line 27, after "election," to insert:
or otherwise of the rules contained in either of the said Schedules.
Subsection (2) provides that an election will not be voided merely because there is a minor breach of the rules on the part of an official. This Amendment will cover cases where there is a minor breach of the rules by an elector. It seems desirable that the same consideration should apply to a minor breach by an elector as apply already to a minor breach by an official.

Mr. Hogg: May we have a little more information on this? What is meant, for instance, by the phrase:


No substantial miscarriage in the conduct of the election"?
It seems to me that these words might have a sinister and undesirable meaning in this connection. We understand, of course, in another type of case the phrase
no substantial miscarriage of justice
Is it seriously to be said that no Parliamentary election shall be declared invalid by reason of any act or omission on the part of the returning officer or any other person in breach of his official duty in connection with the election simply if it appears that the result of the election would be the same? That is most undesirable. It may well be desirable to declare elections invalid if there has been, by persons in a highly responsible position, a deliberate breach of the rules. It seems to be desirable in such cases that an election might be held again, and a penalty indicted for a deliberate or corrupt breach.
We must consider, even, that there ought to be a re-running of the election, notwithstanding that a tribunal might think that the particular breach has not altered the result of the election. It is, in my belief, important in such cases not merely that substantial justice should be done but that it should be beyond question apparent that substantial justice is done in these matters and that elections are run in accordance with the rules. I would like to know why the Under-Secretary has used this precise turn of phrase and what meaning exactly he attaches to it.

Mr. Pritt: I agree very largely with what the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has said. One will see that these words really cover what he wants because there are two requirements. The first is that there shall be no substantial miscarriage of the conduct of the election and the next is that the result is not affected. All the things he has described with characteristic indignation would, I should think, appeal to a tribunal as a substantial miscarriage. In that case, this saving Clause would not save anybody or anything. I should have thought that the hon. Member would already have got what he wanted.

7.30 a.m.

Mr. Hogg: It is very kind of the hon. and learned Member to assist me in this

way, but I would have been very much more grateful for an authoritative explanation from the Government of what these words really mean. We are not concerned with what the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) thinks would be the meaning attached by a tribunal to the phrase
substantial miscarriage in the conduct of an election.
We are interested, first of all in the meaning which the words really have, and secondly in the meaning which the Government intend them to have. I am not impressed with the hon. and learned Member's explanation in the least and, as a matter of fact, I do not think it is the right one. I cannot attach to the words
substantial miscarriage in the conduct of the election
a meaning substantially different from the phrase
substantial miscarriage of justice
which we know in another connection. If the meaning of the phrase is the same, I cannot see that
substantial miscarriage in the conduct of an election
necessarily differs very much from the significant phrase which is used in the Clause,
that the result of the election was not affected.
I should prefer to hear the Government's view on the matter, despite the great legal authority of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith.

Mr. H. Strauss: I think that what the Government intend is something very like what the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) has said, but I cannot think that the word "miscarriage…" is the right word. In fact, I very much doubt if the words
miscarriage" in the conduct of the election 
mean anything at all. I have a suspicion that what the Government meant was "misconduct." I hope the Home Secretary or the Attorney-General will consider this question. Although I feel certain that the Government do intend a dual requirement, as stated by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith, and that a dual requirement would be the right thing, I cannot think that the word "miscarriage" satisfies the requirement in the first part of the Subsection.

Mr. Younger: I am advised that than is by no means a new phrase, and that it is one that is quite well known in election law. I should have thought that it was a matter which we should not interpret any further in uacuo. It is essentially the type of phrase which has to be interpreted by the law in the light of all circumstances. I should also think that the phrase
substantial miscarriage in the conduct of the election
did signify something different from the result of the election not being affected, and that there is in fact quite clearly a dual requirement here. To make any more precise what that meaning is than appears from these words seems to me impossible, except in the light of the facts of a particular case as they come before a tribunal.

Mr. H. Strauss: Can the Minister point out a precedent in a similar Act of Parliament, and the fact that it has been judicially construed? I agree that, if it has occurred in a similar passage and has been judicially construed, it may be valuable to adhere to the words. In the absence of that, I should have thought the words were extremely odd.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Wells): I suggest that it might be convenient if any further discussion on this point were taken on the Clause. It might also be a little more appropriate.

Mr. Astor: With respect, Mr. Wells, similar points have been raised on other Clauses, and we have had no answer at all to them. Suppose this Clause is carried. We shall then have a sentence which, as regards pure English, is probably as appalling as anything one could find, and as regards intelligibility is almost unfathomable. The Home Secretary was challenged on this matter by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) on the construction of these Clauses and the English in the Bill. I would merely make this one point: I cannot believe that if the Clause has something to say it cannot say it in more reasonable and intelligent English than is done in this case.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman's remark is directed more to the wording of the Clause than to the Amendment.

Mr. Astor: Except that the Amendment makes it more complicated.

Mr. Marlowe: I shall direct what I have to say entirely to the Amendment and I shall not keep the Committee long. This requires further explanation, because so far as the hon. Gentleman gave any explanation, it was the wrong one. He said, in effect, that as the Clause stood without the Amendment it overlooked minor breaches affecting the returning officers, and he thought it applied to electors as well. It is a quite pardonable thing for the hon. Gentleman to do at this time of the morning, but I believe that he spoke from the wrong brief. What this Clause did before the Amendment came in was to overlook breaches of any official duty. What the Amendment is, in effect, doing is adding forgiveness not only in cases of breaches of official duty but also breaches of the rules of the Third Schedule. That is rather a different thing from what the hon. Gentleman said when he gave his explanation. In those circumstances, would the hon. Gentleman amplify what he said about the Amendment?

Mr. Younger: I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's view. It is perfectly true the phrase "any other person" means a person other than the returning officer in a case of a breach of an official duty, but it can only refer to someone on official duty. The purpose of this Amendment, as I made quite clear, is to bring in breaches by persons who have no official duty, because they are not officials.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sleepy, and I thought I Clause, but I am beaten here:
in breach of his official duly with the election.
That is still the same person; the Amendment has not imported any new person into it by saying:
or otherwise of the rules contained in either of the said Schedules.
I am quite willing to be convinced. It is a matter on which I am not an expert. I cannot see that any new persons are imported into the ambit of the Clause by the words proposed to be added. There is something here which none of us has understood—or the Under-Secretary has read the wrong page of his brief. We ought to have some explanation.

Mr. Astor: Is it asking too much from the Under-Secretary to request him to reconsider this matter in terms of drafting? No one in the Committee, as far as I can see, can apprehend what it is about, and if we are taking this matter seriously it should be taken back, redrafted and made intelligible. Let us forget the merits of its English, but let us make it intelligible.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I do not know whether I can provide any assistance. I confess that it seems reasonably clear to me. The source of the provision is the Ballot Act of 1872 and it really imports no new principle whatever into our electoral law.
The Amendment which has just been moved by my hon. Friend appears clearly to mean, if members will read it with a little care, that Subsection (2), as amended, will provide for two distinct classes of case. It will provide, first of all, for
any act or omission by the returning officer or any other person in breach of his official duty in connection with the election.
Then it will provide
or otherwise of any other breach.
by anybody. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly, we do not specify by whom the breach is to be and it must therefore be a breach by anybody under a duty imposed by any of the rules contained in either of the Schedules. That seems to be the effect of it. Hon. Members say "No," but I find it quite impossible to give any other construction to this Amendment and I am quite able to give it that construction. As that appears to be the only one possible, that would seem to me to be the right construction. [An HON. MEMBER: It does not mean anything."] It is possible it does mean nothing, but the presumption is that the words do mean some-thing. If they mean something they must mean what I venture to suggest to the Committee.
In view, however, of the questions raised about this point, I intend to look into it between now and Report stage. If necessary, we will make it abundantly clear that what is contemplated by this Subsection, as I have said, are breaches by the returning officer and his officers and breaches of duties imposed upon electors under the various rules set out in the two Schedules.

If there is any doubt, we will make it quite clear that is what the Subsection contemplates. I looked at it as soon as the Committee drew attention to it. The actual words in the original Statute have not been used, but we have given exactly the same meaning. Section 13 of the 1872 Act says:
No election shall be declared invalid by reason of non-compliance with the rules contained in the First Schedule of the Act or any mistake in the use of the forms in the Second Schedule, if it appears to the tribunal, having cognisance of the question that the election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the body of the Act, and such non-compliance and mistake did not affect the result of the election.
That is what my hon. Friend had in mind when he translated the phrase we have used as meaning something which did not, in substance, affect the result of the election. The tribunal will have to look at the facts of each case. This Clause is not dealing with corrupt practices. Those arise under subsequent Clauses which we will have to consider. It deals with breaches of rules of procedure —how to fold ballot papers and so on—contained in the Schedules.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Does it cover any sort of breach of duty?

The Attorney-General: You have to look at the Schedule to find that out. It will be seen that the Schedules impose a large number of duties on different persons. If any of these duties are neglected by any of these persons, a question will arise, which the tribunal will have to consider.

Mr. H. Strauss: Can the Attorney-General cite a precedent for "miscarriage" as here used?

7.45 a.m.

The Attorney-General: I would not like to attempt to do that with regard to electoral law. Quite frankly, and speaking without the book, I do not think that there is a precedent in electoral law, but there is, of course, precedent in other branches of the law. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) mentioned one.

Mr. H. Strauss: Miscarriage of justice?

The Attorney-General: Yes, miscarriage of justice. I realise that the words here are not
miscarriage of justice.


I have read the Clause and I appreciate that point. I was asked whether the word "miscarriage" had been used before, meaning that the proper conduct of proceedings had not been pursued. The word "miscarriage" has been used in the Criminal Appeal Act, and it means here substantially what it means under that Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hogg: When I raised the point before, the Under-Secretary endeavoured to allay my suspicions by telling me that the phrase to which I had taken objection was one which had appeared in an earlier Statute, and that he could give a definite assurance that it had been judicially construed. It now appears that neither of those propositions about it is true. The phrase is new. It has to be introduced into this Clause in place of another phrase which appears to me to have been admirably clear before. We have had no explanation whatever from the Attorney-General why an ambiguous phrase should have been introduced in place of a phrase which was admirably clear. I want to know why we cannot go back to the clear language which was used before, instead of this miserable English which we are asked to use now, and which I believe is a purely false analogy from the phrase in the Criminal Appeal Act.
I am not at all clear in my own mind that the Clause as amended does not contain ambiguities and difficulties not suspected by the Government. We began with a Clause which was designed to meet irregularities by officials and others in the conduct of their official duty. We were then told that the Clause must apply, to electors as well. The result has been that, as amended, the Clause now applies to electors the language which was originally designed to be appropriate to officials. I am not at all sure that in doing that we have not succeeded in widening the Clause beyond the scope that we would like it to have.
I should like to have from the Under-Secretary a little more precision as to the kind of cases which this Clause is intended to cover in relation to electors. It is all very well to tell the Committee

that we cannot give any undertaking at all as to what this Clause will mean in practice, and that we must wait for the tribunals to construe it, as tribunals will, without considering the intention of the Government but only looking at the nature of the words. We are entitled to a little more than that. The Under-Secretary should explain, especially with regard to electors, the kind of irregularity which will not invalidate an election, and the kind of irregularity which, but for this Clause, would have invalidated an election. I was not impressed by what the learned Attorney-General told us, namely, that this Clause was designed to cover mistakes in the ballot paper.
I do not believe for a moment that had it not been for this Clause it would have been possible for a whole election to be invalidated. I want the Under-Secretary to explain what would have invalidated a whole election but for this Clause, but will not invalidate an election, now that we are going to pass this Clause. I wish he would not ask us to be content with a set of circumstances which he cannot envisage arising, and with his statement that the courts will apply a set of words which we cannot understand, in a way which will be considered satisfactory.

Mr. Astor: A Clause consisting of Subsections, which in turn have numerous paragraphs, which again have numerous sub-paragraphs, and which goes through practically half of the alphabet, is very difficult to follow. We find ourselves faced with sentences so long and clumsy that by the time one has read to the end of them one has forgotten what was stated at the beginning. I would like at least to have the right hon. Gentleman's sympathy in this matter, perhaps even more than that of the learned Attorney-General, who, because of his profession, will be prejudiced in these matters. Perhaps he will bear in mind that the Committee, with the best will in the world, has been puzzled by these sentences. I would urge him to carry sympathy even to the point of making the sentences shorter, their construction more simple, and the phraseology clearer.

Colonel Hutchison: These words, such as "superficial miscarriage," give so much trouble. Since the Attorney-General has promised to look into the whole of this Clause again, would it not get him out


of the difficulty if he omitted the words altogether? Surely the purpose of the Clause is that the result of an election shall not be affected. That seems to be a perfectly straightforward issue, an issue upon which the tribunal would want to satisfy itself. If the tribunal has satisfied itself upon that point, why cloud the issue by bringing in "misconduct," or "miscarriage," or similar words? I suggest that there should be an examination of that aspect when the rest of the Clause is examined.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: It is well-known that the average Englishman is a past-master at ruining his own beautiful language. In Scotland we speak much better English than is spoken in England. I would like to know whether the Secretary of State for Scotland, or the Lord Advocate or his predecessor, were consulted about the wording of this Clause. The Clause is to apply to Scotland, but if this Clause were given to any sheriff or to any sheriff-substitute in Scotland, he would laugh and say that it was absolute rubbish. An Act of 1872 was handed to the learned Attorney-General, but he had to change its language to this fatuous "miscarriage" business. Why change the language of 1872, when the people still spoke English, to this beastly nonsense which we are discussing today? Let us have English which people can understand.
I am a great admirer of the legal profession, though I am glad to say that so far I have not got into their clutches, and I hope I shall not. To lawyers these things may be simple, but it is not the lawyers with whom we are concerned. They make a good thing out of it. I number among my hon. and learned Friends some distinguished lawyers, but I still say that laws are not made for the benefit of lawyers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps I should say that they should not be made for the benefit of lawyers. When we have an old law of 1872 which reads perfectly simply, let us use it when we want to express the same thing. I hope that the Attorney-General has consulted the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope he will say that in his wildest dreams he has never thought that this English should go forth to Scotland and that he should expect it to be worked upon.

Mr. Astor: I would point out that the Attorney-General was at some pains to explain what he thought this meant. It took him some time to do that. Something must be wrong with a Clause which is so short and upon which the Attorney-General had to spend such a time in endeavouring to explain to a Committee of intelligent people what he believes it means. That in itself is a case for the Government to agree that the Clause should be re-drafted. We do not blame the man who drafted the words. I wish that the Home Secretary would break his silence on this point and express his opinion on the matter.

The Attorney-General: I have already said that I will look into the language of this Clause again. I must confess that I have a good deal of sympathy with what has been said by hon. Members opposite. I will satisfy myself that there really is some good and adequate reason for the departure that we have made from the language of the Act of 1872. We will look into the matter and satisfy ourselves that it really is necessary to use a different form of words.
On the question of the purpose of the words, the position is clear. Under Subsection (1) it is provided that elections must be conducted in accordance with rules laid down in the Schedule. That was also provided in the Act of 1872. If, prima facie an election was not conducted in accordance with all those rules, including the rule which provides that one must fold a ballot paper, the election might be held invalid. Obviously, we must avoid such an absurd result. In order to do that we have adopted this form of words. It would not be possible for me to attempt to anticipate what view a particular tribunal might take of a breach of a particular rule. That is a matter which the tribunal would decide on the merits of the case.
Under the Clause as it is framed—and, I think, under the corresponding Section of the Act of 1872—the tribunal would be likely to consider, in relation to any particular breach of rule—whether it was by the returning officer or an official, or by an elector—whether that breach was likely to have led to some different result in the election. If they came to the conclusion that the breach of the rule was some technical matter which, although it ought not to have taken place, could


not conceivably have affected the result of the election, then they would operate under the provisions of Subsection (2). They would not declare the election invalid by reason only of that breach.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: It seems obvious after this discussion that there will have to be some redrafting of this provision. The Attorney-General has had two shots at it. He may have convinced himself, he may have convinced some of us, but I am afraid that he has not clarified the minds of all present.

The Attorney-General: I could not hope to do that, could I?

Mr. Reid: The purpose of a Bill is to be intelligible to the King's subjects, and not merely to persons who have had long experience in these matters. Surely it would be very much better, rather than that this argument should proceed further, that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw this Amendment and reconsider the matter?

8.0 a.m.

The Attorney-General: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would allow me, I think we are now on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Reid: I am afraid that it is difficult at this time of the morning to keep abreast of the proceedings. If that is so, we must have been nodding.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I have a small suggestion to make. The word "miscarriage" has caused a great deal of trouble and I am about to suggest that what is really meant is that there is no substantial irregularity affecting the result of the election. I give that to the Committee for what it is worth, and I hope the learned Attorney-General will take steps to clarify the position.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask a question, and have a direct answer? Were the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate consulted about this, and did they agree?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. W. Wells): The Question is, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. H. Strauss: Mr. H. Strauss rose——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I put the Question——

Hon. Members: No.

The Temporary Chairman: Hon. Members will kindly allow me to continue my explanation. I put the Question before I saw any hon. Member on his feet.

Sir John Mellor: On a point of Order, Mr. Wells. You said that you put the Question before you saw any Member on his feet; but, with respect, you were looking at your Order Paper the whole time, and it would have been impossible for you to see anybody.

Mr. Hogg: Surely the test is this, Mr. Wells. It is not a question of whether the Question was read out and put before you saw Members rise, but whether the voices were collected. That has not been done.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member is quite inaccurate. I did put the Question, and I did collect the voices.

Hon. Members: No.

The Temporary Chairman: I can only reaffirm what I have said.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: On a point of Order. We are surely entitled to an opportunity to vote against Clause 12 if we so desire? It was impossible for us to determine what you were saying, and it was impossible for you to determine what we were saying. I heard hon. Members shouting "No" when, perhaps, they thought you were putting the Question. To put the Question in those circumstances, and then to say that the Ayes have it and that it was never challenged, is a little bit difficult even at this hour.

The Temporary Chairman: I am sorry, but after putting the Question, I heard Members calling "Aye" and "No," and I could only come to one conclusion—that hon. Members appreciated that I was putting the Question.

Commander Galbraith: You said you heard Members calling "Aye" and "No," Mr. Wells. If you heard the Ayes from one side and the Noes from the other, surely it would be a question of a division. I was sitting here the whole time when you were on your feet, and I was shouting "No" as hard as I could.

Mr. John Paton: On a point of Order. Is it in accordance with the rules of procedure of this House for hon. Members of the Opposition to attempt to bully the Chair?

The Temporary Chairman: I do not think that is a point of Order. After the point of Order which the hon. Gentleman put to me, I should have called a Divi-

Division No. 120.]
AYES.
[8.4 a.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Hale, Leslie
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Alpass, J. H.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Pritt, D. N.


Attewell, H. C.
Hardman, D. R.
Randall, H. E.


Austin, H. Lewis
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Ranger, J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B.
Herbison, Miss M.
Reeves, J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Holman, P.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Battley, J. R.
House, G.
Royle, C.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Berry, H
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Sharp, Granville


Beswick, F.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Bing, G. H. C.
Janner, B.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Binns, J.
Jeger, G (Winchester)
Simmons, C. J


Blackburn, A. R.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Sorensen, R. W.


Boardman, H.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Soskice, Sir Frank


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Sparks, J. A.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Keenan, W.
Steele, T.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Kendall, W. D.
Symonds, A. L.


Brown, T J. (Ince)
Kenyon, C.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Bruce, Major D. W. T.
Lee, Mist J. (Cannock)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Butler, H W (Hackney, S.)
Levy, B. W
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Byers, Frank
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Champion, A. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Collindridge, F.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Longden, F.
Tiffany, S.


Crossman, R. H. S.
McGhee, H. G.
Tolley, L.


Daggar, G,
McLeavy, F.
Vernon, Major W. F.


Daines, P.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Wadsworth, G.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Mellish, R. J
Watkins, T. E.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Weitzman, D.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, P, L. (Faversham)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Monslow, W.
West, D. G.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Dodds, N. N.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Moyle, A.
Wilkes, L.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Nally, W
Wilkins, W. A.


Evans, A (Islington, W.)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Williams, D J. (Neath)


Farthing, W. J
Noel-Baker, Capt. F, E. (Brentford)
Williams. J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Fernyhough, E.
Orbach, M.
Williams, R W. (Wigan)


Field, Captain W J.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Foot, M. M.
Pargiter, G. A
Willis, E.


Forman, J. C.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Gonley, Mrs. C. S
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Pearson, A.
Yates, V. F.


Gibson, C. W.
Peart, Thomas F.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Gilzean, A.
Perrins, W.



Gunter, R. J
Piratin, P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Guy, W. H
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Mr. Snow and




Mr. George Wallace.




NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Drayson, G. B.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)


Amory, D. Heathcoal
Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Astor, Hon. M.
Fox, Sir G
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Gage, C.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.


Bossom, A. C.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Meltor, Sir J


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Gomme Duncan, Col. A
Mullan, Lt. C. H.


Butcher, H. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Challen, C.
Hogg, Hon. Q
Odey, G. W.


Channon, H.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Keeling, E. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Prescott, Stanley


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F. C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Cuthbert, W. N.
McKie, J H. (Galloway)
Roberts, Peter (Ecclesall)

sion. That is quite a different point to the other points put to me, and I should be willing to put the Question again for that purpose.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 148; Noes, 47.

Robinson, Roland
Studholme, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Spence, H. R.
Touche, G. C
Major Conant and


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wheatley, Col. M. J. (Dorset, E.J
Major Ramsay.


Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section r of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Chertsey, a copy of which Order was presented on 22nd March, be approved.
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section I of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the rural district of Lydney, a copy of which Order was presented on 22nd March, be approved."—[Mr. Younger.]

Orders of the Day — STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS (CLUB LICENSING)

8.17 a.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Simmons.]

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Perhaps I should first apologise for raising this matter at this time. [HON. MEMBERS: "The day is young."] It is appropriate that the subject I am raising has to do with the hours of closure under State management. This is not the first time that the Secretary of State has heard about this matter from me. It is a matter of which the House should take cognisance. The subject is the licensing of clubs in State Management districts.
Under the Defence of the Realm (Liquor Control) Regulations of 1915, in two districts in Scotland, Cromarty Firth and Gretna, and in two in England, Carlisle and Enfield Lock, the Government of the day established, in 1915, State control of licensed premises in order to deal with the special war conditions. After the end of the war, in 1921, the inertia of the Government machine resulted in the perpetuation of this monstrosity. Under the words of Section 16 of the Licensing Act, 1921,
until Parliament otherwise determines,
the regulations were continued in force in the two English districts, which are under the control of the Home Secretary, and

in the two Scottish districts, which are under the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Enfield, I understand, has been lucky enough to escape, but the other three districts still remain in the fell clutch of State management.
It is not open to me this morning to seek to change the regulations, those relics of the first world war, now embalmed in the Third Schedule to the 1921 Act. To alter them, or indeed the districts to which they apply, would require legislation. The Third Schedule to the 1921 Act confers upon the Secretary of State a complete monopoly in the sale and supply of intoxicating liquors in the two districts, and raises him wholly above the law, in as much as he does not have to apply to the licensing courts for licences to operate the licensed premises under his control. But he is given discretion, and that discretion is to make exceptions in the case of
any specified class or classes of premises or clubs.
It is with those discretionary powers granted to the Secretary of State that I wish to deal, and in particular with the exercise of those powers in the Gretna district, which includes the burgh of Annan and nine unfortunate parishes in the county of Dumfries. I have to be rather careful of this, because the Secretary of State can exercise his discretion either to prohibit the licence altogether or to extend it. I urge him to extend the hours of the licence. I dare say that if I pressed the case too hard an unjust Secretary of State might penalise the cause for which I am seeking an extension, but I am sure that the present Secretary of State will do no such thing. In passing, I would like to call attention to the fact that this was a case of nationalisation in a fit of absence of mind. It was a sudden access of post-war paralysis of the will. Away back in 1921 we had the whole panoply of nationalisation, not excluding that singular organ which is always doomed to perpetual frustration—the advisory council.
I should explain that the licensing hours in Dumfriesshire are II a.m. to 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. to 9 p.m., and to those hours the State management conforms. Eighteen


months ago the first steps were taken to form an ex-Service club in the burgh of Annan for the burgh and district of Annan, and in due course application was made to the Secretary of State for a licence similar to that granted to the British Legion club in the Royal burgh of Dumfries. The permitted hours in the clubs in Dumfries are different from the normal licensing hours. There is a Sunday evening licence, and the club is open from 6 p.m. to 1o p.m. instead of from 5 p.m. to 9 p.m.
The Secretary of State duly referred that application to the Sheriff. The Sheriff took the advice of the burgh of Annan and of the chief constable of the county, and gave a favourable opinion. Not only that, but the advisory council also gave its blessing to the application. I remember a worthy who used to say to me: "Never ask for advice, and if you do ask for advice, never take it." The Secretary of State has possibly followed this maxim in this case. He has granted the licence, but for the local hours and not for the hours requested. This meant, in fact, as the licence was at first granted, that the club could not even serve liquor on Christmas Day, let alone Sundays. Later, the Secretary of State relented and granted permission for liquor to be served on Good Fridays and on Christmas Days, provided that Christmas Day was not a Sunday.
The reason for the choice of the hours 5 to 9 in a rural district are fairly plain. There is a scattered area. People finish their work at 5. They like to have a drink, and then they scatter to their homes, and once they are there they probably remain there. Conditions in a club are different. In the case of a club, one wants to go home, wash and get cleaned up, have a meal and then come back to the club, and possibly spend the evening there. Therefore, it is quite reasonable that the hours for the club should be 6 p.m. to 10 p.m.
I never heard of licensed hours in a club finishing at 9 o'clock, except possibly in Dingwall. It might be said it would be possible to drink from 5 to 9 without stopping and then go to the club afterwards for an extra hour. I am sure that is not possible in this particular case, but even if the club were so licensed it could be brought into line with modern hours. As a matter of fact, there are already

very severe rules in the club as to the admission of non-members. The rules say that a member cannot introduce a visitor resident within 10 miles of Annan and no member is allowed to introduce a visitor after 9 p.m. The whole question is one of members, and they can be disciplined.
I am rather afraid that the reason why the licences are not granted is twofold. First of all, there is a very great temptation on the part of any State organisation to try to apply rigidity and uniformity, and, secondly, each case is not treated on the merits. I was actually told that no such exceptions had been made in the State management in the Cromarty area, which is some 25o miles away. It would be as relevant to refer to the moon, so far as this case is concerned. The only connection between Cromarty and Gretna is that both are controlled from Glasgow by the controller through St. Andrew's House in Edinburgh and the Treasury in London, which is not a very businesslike arrangement.
The second reason is the fear of competition. I cannot help feeling that the Secretary of State could not reasonably refuse a licence to an ex-Serviceman's club, but if he allowed too much business to be lost he would have the Treasury after him. If it was said, "Give them an extra hour," it might be thought that that would give them an unfair advantage. If that is so, the Dumfries Club has it, and got it from the licensing authorities. In point of fact, that argument is without foundation. It is true that the club does have better variety to offer than the State-controlled houses.
I would mention in passing that at the present time something like £84,000 is made in profits in the district. Those profits should be applied for the benefit of licensed premises in the district. The Secretary of State should not be afraid of this competition, because once he has given a decision to have a licence at all, part of the custom of licensed premises naturally passes to the club. However, once that is done, it shows broadly whether a person is a pub man or a club man. If a man goes to a club regularly he will not normally go to a pub.
I would put it to the Secretary of State that if he does not wish to give way on


this issue, one will be forced to the conclusion that he is scared at the absence of tidy, arid uniformity, of competition, of the Treasury, of the unlikely possibility of excesses, and frightened that because he has yielded to a good case today he may be unable later to resist a bad one. That would represent the view of the House if he does not give way to what I consider to be a very good case, bearing in mind that in Dumfries, which is the next burgh, there are the same normal licensing hours and that all clubs have this facility.
There is no reason why State management should be less flexible and less willing to agree to concessions to clubs than the licensing authorities in Dumfries. For that reason and because the sheriff, the chief constable and his own advisory board all recommend these hours, and because of the different nature of a club and licensed premises, I hope that the Secretary of State will change his mind on this matter.

8.31 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I should like first of all to congratulate the hon. Member on his endurance, in sitting through the night's proceedings and in his pursuit of this case. Whatever satisfaction or dissatisfaction he may have from my answer, those for whom he has been speaking must regard him as something of a hero in fighting this case right up to the bitter end.

Mr. Macpherson: I would reciprocate these remarks.

Mr. Woodburn: It has been a relay result in my case, because my predecessor made this decision, and I have sustained it. The only benefit from that is that two minds have been occupied on the question from this side. Both having come to an agreement, it seems there is a prima facie case. If two heads are better than one, our combined decision must have been better in this matter than the hon. Member's. I sympathised with the deputation that came to see me. I must say they put forward some very reasonable arguments. They almost persuaded me that their case was one of "Sweet reasonableness;" but it is not quite so clear as that. The hon. Member, for example, gave the impression that we are closing the club at 9 p.m. We are not suggesting that the club should close at 9; it can carry on until

the usual time. All we are asking is to close the pub in the club at 9.

Mr. Macpherson: I did not mean to give that impression. I was talking about licensing hours.

Mr. Woodburn: I was not saying people should go to bed at 9. I said the pub should close at the same time as other licensed houses in the area. There is a justification for uniformity in this matter. The hon. Member suggested that I want to keep a monopoly for the State concerns. On the contrary, I am allowing the maximum competition because the club can keep open to the last minute that the State concerns can keep open. The hon. Member referred to monopoly. It would be monopoly for the club to be open from 9 to 10 when other places are closed.
There is a danger of lack of uniformity in this matter. If the club is to be open from 9 to 1o with a membership fee of 5s. a year—I do not know the cost of these refreshments nowadays, but I should imagine most people would spend more than that in one evening on refreshments —the club fee is almost like entry money. The club would tend to become a glorified pub rather than a club. If it is to be a club, I am anxious it should be separate and distinct. Those who want to go to the club can go to the club, and those who want to go to the pub can go to the pub. Clearly, extending the hours till 1o o'clock would open the door to abuses of the club licence, and it is certainly feared that advantage would be taken of it, so that a greater number of people would continue drinking than would otherwise be the case.
It may be said that the alternative is to keep the pubs open till 1o o'clock. Well, that has been the practice for many years. I have been well acquainted with the running of the State concerns in the Dingwell and Cromarty area, I know a little about them in Annan, and doubtless some hon. Members will be familiar with them in Carlisle. This House has frequently paid tribute to the great benefits which that experiment has brought to the people of those areas—an experiment initiated, incidentally, by a leader of the hon. Member's own party many years ago. While some people would argue that there should be no alcoholic drink at all, those* who take a reasonable view of the matter have come to the conclusion that State management is probably the finest


way of dealing with what used to be a very serious problem, and what in some quarters is still regarded as difficult.
I should be very reluctant to take any step likely to undermine that great social experiment in dealing with the distribution of drink and with the drink trade in those areas. It has been such a success that, in many cases, its very success has prevented it from being extended elsewhere, because its extension would interfere with many vested interests which, quite naturally, want to preserve their own business, and their own methods of dealing. This experiment under State management has been carried on alongside the normal distribution of drink. True, it has made a profit and been very successful, but lest the hon. Member should think that we are profiteering I would point out that State management will follow the Chancellor's advice, and will try to keep prices to the public down rather than raise them. If we set an example in that direction, others may follow suit.
I hope the hon. Member will agree that I have given this matter sympathetic consideration. I repeat, his deputation were so persuasive that they almost converted me, but after examining the question very thoroughly I am satisfied that the wisest course is to maintain uniform hours in the district, and to ensure that, though there may be club and State licences, these matters are dealt with on the same basis, and that no preference is given to one or the other. That, I think, is the

fair and just way of dealing with the matter; otherwise I might be compelled to go to the other extreme and give State publichouses licences to open for longer hours.
In making the following observations I do not want to be thought to be casting any reflection on the people of the country, districts in Scotland today. True, in the days of Poosie Nancy and Burns's "The Holy Fair," with people like Tam o' Shanter, who went to the inns and never got home at all——

Mr. Hector Hughes: Like Members of Parliament.

Mr. Woodburn: That is a very good reason for taking this course. It is the case that originally these hours were fixed with a view to benefiting the health and well-being of the community, and to promoting the active work of the people during wartime. We are now faced with a situation not less serious than that which confronted us during the war, so we must not take any step which would encourage a diminution of the healthy habits which have been formed in these areas. I hope the hon. Member will believe that I am sympathetic towards the case he has put forward. I again compliment him on the energy with which he has pursued it; but I regret that at this moment I am not able to alter my decision.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes to Nine o'Clock a.m.